Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Film Industry (Working Party's Report)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Working Party on the Film Industry as set out in Command Paper No. 6372.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 14th January. I have nothing further to add at this time.

Mr. Neubert: Has the Minister especially noted that British films are singularly suitable export material, given the minimum of raw materials required

and the abundance of creative talent available? Will he do all possible to give maximum assistance to this aspect of the industry's work?

Mr. Shore: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this country has a splendid talent for making films. We also have the great advantage of speaking a language that is widely understood in many continents. Therefore, there is a considerable opportunity and potential for the British film-making industry.

Mrs. Dunwoody: In the talks which I know he must be planning to hold with the British film industry, will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to make clear that this is probably one of the last chances we shall have of maintaining the industry in its existing form? We hope that there will be a great deal of imagination and new thinking when the new authority is set up, because the audiovisual arts provide one of the most important ways in which we can develop not only the cultural but the commercial interests of this industry.

Mr. Shore: I know that my hon. Friend has followed closely the developments of the British film industry and that in the past she has had ministerial responsibility for it. I think she will agree that the report—which, of course, we have not yet properly studied—is evidence that there has been new thinking that the industry is aware of the urgency of the present situation, and that this may be a


most important opportunity to safeguard its future.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that at least part of the answer to the film industry's problems is to encourage the free collaboration that already exists among the film industry and the BBC and ITV companies?

Mr. Shore: Yes, I think that is a very important aspect. Indeed, one of the rather striking features of the report is its reference to the coming together of the rather separate interests in film making—television on the one hand and cinema on the other—and the substantial agreement which they have reached.

Shipping (Freight Rates)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that subsidised freight slashing by Eastern bloc shipping lines does not constitute dumping.

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what assessment he has made of the extent and effect of subsidised freight rate slashing by Eastern bloc countries on British shipowners.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that existing anti-dumping legislation is adequate to prevent the offering by foreign concerns of services, such as shipping, at less than cost.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that Eastern bloc shipping lines are competing for cargo on a fair basis.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): We have received representations which are being studied urgently and we are consulting with interested parties both at home and abroad. In any event, dumping, as defined by our legislation, applies only to goods and not to services.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister confirm that British shipowners are not the only ones to be affected by these practices and that representations have been made to the inter-departmental consultative shipping group by national shipowners' associations from Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always sorry to interrupt a lady, but if the preamble could be dealt with and the Question put quicker it would assist us all.

Mrs. Knight: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker. I merely ask the Minister whether it is true that there is worldwide concern about this matter.

Mr. Davis: Yes; widespread anxiety is felt by shipowners and, indeed, Governments. However, it is right that we should carry out a careful assessment of the position and seek, as far as we can, a co-ordinated approach in order to resolve the problem.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend consider this problem most seriously? Is he aware that there is plenty of evidence that in certain cases rates are being undercut by as much as 25 per cent. and that the jobs of many British seamen will be threatened if this continues?

Mr. Davis: Yes, we are very concerned. Indeed, it is for that reason that my Department and I are concerned to carry out a careful assessment of the position. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), it is right that as far as possible there should be a joint approach on these matters rather than simply a bilateral exchange.

Mr. Shersby: Will the Minister try to deal with the difficult problem of flag discrimination by making certain that British and other Western shipowners have access to Russian liner cargoes, in the same way as the Russians have access to ours?

Mr. Davis: That, of course, is more easily said than done. In this matter we also have to take into account the views of our exporters. We should not jump into making a rash judgment. I hope the House will consider that what I have already outlined as the Department's policy is a correct and sensible one.

Mr. Ford: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that these subsidies apply not only to shipping but to electronics, leather goods, textiles, electrical


engineering and many other items, all of which, as a sum total, seem to represent a conspiracy to destroy Western economies? Will he take this matter very seriously and, if necessary, consult other Governments?

Mr. Davis: I think that it is all too easy to rush into a widespread denunciation. One has to examine each practice on its own merits or demerits, as the case may be—and that, of course, is what my Department does. On aspects other than shipping, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has already made, or will be making, representations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has strong reserve powers under Part III of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 by means of which he can even prevent foreign vessels calling at British ports? In accepting the need for joint action, is the hon. Gentleman consulting other Western nations which have similar powers?

Mr. Davis: We are having consultations with other Western nations which may be affected by this threat. Whether all of them have reserve powers similar to ours I would not like to hazard a guess. As was outlined by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then in charge of the Department, there can be no doubt that our reserve powers were intended by the Conservative Government as a policy of last resort. That has to be taken into account, because they are very Draconian powers.

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that we on the Government side deplore dumping from wherever it comes? At the same time, when there is talk of distortion of Western economies taking place, as though in a conspiracy, will my hon. Friend also accept from me that I, with many of my hon. Friends in Sheffield, have been approached by shop stewards' committees and factories about the dumping of Japanese steel, which distorts the economy of that steel city? Will he also take that into account?

Mr. Davis: As a matter of general principle, dumping is to be deplored. My right hon. Friend has constantly given the Government's policy on the subject. I

do not want to enter into a philosophical discussion about the demerits of certain conspiracies, because I think that it would take more than Question Time to get through it.

Mr. Morrison: Has the hon. Gentleman considered what is the motivation behind the slashing of shipping rates by the Eastern bloc? Is he happy that its actions are within the spirit of the Helsinki détente?

Mr. Davis: If I were happy about the situation I would not be engaged in the discussions which I have already outlined. It is, of course, a matter for concern. I would not like to think that anyone was complacent about a matter in respect of which the shipowners feel very strongly and have made representations to a large number of hon. Members.

Exports and Imports

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further action is proposed to promote exports and to restrict imports.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he now proposes to take further measures to control imports.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will undertake not to introduce import controls.

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the Government's policy on import controls in the House on 17th December. As regards exports, the Government and the British Overseas Trade Board will continue to give their full support to the efforts of British exporters.

Mr. Evans: As, despite the world economic recession, we are improving our share of world trade, what action will the Government take to stimulate exports now that the long-term objective of export-led growth seems possible in the near future?

Mr. Shore: The Government have taken both general and specific measures to increase the movement of resources into exports. That, after all, is the primary aim of the Government's economic policy. As my hon. Friend is aware,


in the last 12 months we have introduced, especially through the ECGD, a whole range of facilities designed to assist British exporters in important and developing markets.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the continuing problems of the textile industry? Is he further aware that it has one of the finest records of output per head of all manufacturing concerns? Because of the continuing crisis in the industry, will he give further consideration to quantitative controls and the long-term regulator that the industry so desperately requires?

Mr. Shore: I am very conscious of the problems of the textile industry. Indeed, Members on both sides of the House who represent textile areas have spoken most strongly, and continue to do so, in the interests of that industry. But we have taken certain measures to help deal with the serious growth of imports, particularly in relation to yarn imports from Spain and Portugal. At last we have got into place the extensive quantitative control of exports from most of the low-cost producing countries under the Multi-fibre Agreement.

Mr. Canavan: Following the meeting in December with trade unionists from the Scottish chipboard industry, including those from Cowie, in my constituency, and in view of the concern expressed about jobs, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to control imports of chipboard?

Mr. Shore: There have been continuing discussions on the problem of chipboard. My hon. Friend has taken part, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in a recent discussion about the matter. There is not at present an antidumping proposal before us. What we have advised the industry to do—and I gather that it has had some success in this—is to reach agreement with suppliers from some of the countries from which the pressure is greatest in order to regulate any unnecessary or excessive flow of exports to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not absurdly shortsighted of the Government to pursue a trade policy in relation to the Soviet Union and other Communist countries whereby exports from this country are provided to them on financial terms far

more favourable than our own industries can obtain, and then to take no action against dumped exports from those countries, which then arrive here and further jeopardise our own industries? I refer in particular to the export of textile machinery and the dumping of textile products.

Mr. Shore: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has put his question in that way. As he knows, in the case of chipboard the strongest pressure on the British industry arises from Belgian exports. In so far as there is an East European export problem, we have got both a price and a volume undertaking and an understanding with the Romanians in this sector.
On the more general question, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that we really cannot simply consider problems of imports from Eastern European countries, including the Soviet Union, without also considering the large opportunities that exist for us to sell our exports to them. I expect that as many hon. Members would be anxious for me to press for particular export opportunities in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as are now worried about imports from those countries. We have to keep the matter in balance. Our credit terms have to be competitive with those of other countries which are doing business with Eastern Europe.

Mr. Speaker: I remind both Front Benches that this is not debating time and that they ought to make their points more briefly.

Mr. Crawford: What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Scotch Whisky Association about import restrictions? Does he not agree that too much import restriction may lead to retaliatory action, which would damage the industry and its employees?

Mr. Shore: I shall bear that point in mind, but I have not had recent discussions with the Scotch Whisky Association on export-import problems.

Aircraft Collision (Inquiry)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects the inquiry into the mid-air collision involving a civil Piper Aztec aircraft on 7th


January off the east coast of England to be complete.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is impossible to forecast what problems the inspector's investigation will encounter in the course of the inquiry, but I am advised that the Chief Inspector of Accidents expects to be able to submit the report on the accident before the end of summer this year.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Minister confirm that this will be a joint military and civil inquiry? May I remind him of the disquiet that has arisen because of the lack of publication of the military side of such inquiries? Will he ensure that on this occasion nothing will be concealed unless required by security?

Mr. Davis: This inquiry was undertaken by the Accident Investigation Branch of the Department of Trade and also by the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the report will be published wholly or in part unless, in the joint opinion of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade, there are good reasons for that not being done.

English Tourist Board

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he last met the Chairman of the English Tourist Board.

Mr. Shore: On 28th January.

Mr. Blaker: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Chairman of the Board—and if he did not, will he?—the present arrangement by which financial assistance for tourist projects from the three principal Boards is limited to the development areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that "Come to sunny Skelmersdale for your summer holidays" is a good slogan—with all respect to Skelmersdale?

Mr. Shore: Resources are at present severely limited. Given the wide range of areas that are now scheduled as development areas, it makes sense to concentrate what resources there are on promoting tourism in those areas.

London and County Securities Limited

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether his Department's investigations into London and County Securities Limited is due to be published; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: The report was published on 29th January 1976.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report was buried by another Press romp which came out on the same day? Is he prepared to comment on the statement in the report that leading politicians should not become involved in these matters? If, in fact, politicians should not become involved in these institutions, is it not right that nobody should become involved in the setting up of these secondary banks? Will my right hon. Friend introduce legislation to outlaw the practice?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the findings of the inspectors, and it is true that they spoke of it as a cautionary tale for politicians. As for the more general question of part-time directors, I am certain that what the inspectors said has a much wider relevance. The whole report——in common, incidentally, with other recent reports from the Department of Trade—indicates clearly the need for much stronger regulating powers not only in the company sector generally but specifically in relation to secondary banks.

Mr. Hordern: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the worst features of the affair—apart from the fact that the shareholders lost all their money, which has been seldom pointed out—is the fact that the auditors passed the accounts of this organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman hold consultations with the accountancy profession to see that proper accounting standards, common throughout the profession, are soon adopted?

Mr. Shore: The report contains several references to the role of the auditors at different stages. There were several different accounting and auditing exercises, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. On some of these the report had critical


remarks to make. As I understand it, it is the practice of the professional accountancy bodies to set up a sub-committee whenever auditors are criticised by the Department and in a report. They are doing so in this case.
Beyond that, I shall certainly consider much more carefully the whole role of auditors in this matter.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the inspectors' finding, the auditors were repeatedly deceived by Mr. Caplan, although the same distinguished firm remained auditors to the company up to the time of the crash?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of that. As I say, it is important to distinguish between two different stages at which the auditors were involved. In reference to some of the activities the auditors are criticised to some extent by the inspectors. In other activities in which they were engaged they are not criticised. However, I take what the hon. Gentleman said. As the report indicates, the auditors were dealing with an extraordinary degree of deception and deviousness.

Electrical Goods (Imports)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now take necessary steps to prevent the unfair competition arising from the importation of large numbers of low-priced electrical goods such as toasters, irons and hair driers which are causing short-term working and the threat of redundancies at the Hotpoint Plant, Swinton, Mexborough; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I have received no evidence of unfair competition arising from the importation of such goods.

Mr. Wainwright: That is a dusty answer. Does my hon. Friend realise that several small factories have been closed in South Yorkshire in the last two or three years, but that this is not a small factory? It is a large one. Is he further aware that a tremendous amount of money has been spent trying to modernise it? Indeed, it is going through that phase at the moment. Does my hon. Friend want this factory to

close down, creating great unemployment in the Mexborough district? If the Department cannot find any evidence to prove that imports are below the figure that we say they should be, and if the Department cannot restrict imports, will the Minister tell the owner of the factory what the Government will do in order to make certain that the factory can be viable?

Mr. Deakins: We have had no request from this industry for action either to impose import controls or to initiate antidumping action. The initiative surely rests with the industry. I would point out that although import penetration has increased with hair driers it has fallen in the other two categories, namely toasters and irons.

Mr. Warren: Is not the problem the imposition of 25 per cent. VAT on these items? Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Hastings we have had hundreds of redundancies because no attention has been paid to the need to protect the employment of people who ought to be in work producing goods that are required in the United Kingdom market?

Mr. Deakins: I remind the hon. Gentleman that value added tax is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exechequer.

Concorde

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about negotiations to enable Concorde services to be extended to routes other than London—Bahrain.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what success he has achieved in securing overflying and landing rights for Concorde.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the latest negotiations concerning Concorde for which his Department is responsible.

Mr. Shore: I made a statement to the House on 5th February on Mr. Secretary Coleman's decision to allow British Airways to operate scheduled services to New York and Washington for a trial


period of 16 months. Discussions are continuing with other countries on the proposed services to Melbourne and Tokyo, and further statements will be made at the appropriate times.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how negotiations for overflying rights are going with India? Will he hazard a guess on the question which will be the next Concorde service?

Mr. Shore: I would rather not hazard a guess at the present time. We are having continuing discussions with the Indian Government. As I said earlier, when I reach a point at which I believe I can make a statement I shall do so.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the Secretary of State started negotiations with the Soviet Union concerning overflying rights? Will he say whether any discussions have been started with regard to the TU144s flying into Heathrow?

Mr. Shore: We and the French are in discussion with the Soviet Union about a supersonic corridor and a refuelling stop inside their area. I am not aware of any application by the Soviet airline to fly into Heathrow.

Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell any other Governments who may seek to use Concorde as an excuse to involve themselves in unrelated issues in discussion with Her Majesty's Government that such tactics are counterproductive, particularly if they seek to stifle criticism of current events in any of those countries?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman clearly has some serious matter on his mind which he has not felt it proper to reveal to the House. However, I take note of what he said, and if he wants a private word with me I shall be available.

Mr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind that landing rights at Kennedy Airport, New York, are quite crucial to the commercial success of Concorde, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have had discussions with the state or city authorities of New York about the possibility of Concorde landing hold-ups from those quarters?

Mr. Shore: The Government have not had discussions with those authorities, but

Air France and British Airways made immediate applications to the controlling authorities of both Dulles and Kennedy Airports.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it correct to say that some consideration has been given to flying Concorde to Johannesburg? If I am correct in suggesting that a difficulty in that regard is the overflying of Nigeria, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether discussions are proceeding with that Government with a view to solving the problem?

Mr. Shore: We have to face questions of routes one at a time. It is true that within the reserve list of routes there is one to Johannesburg, but we are pressing ahead, as is only sensible, with the priority routes. After all, we have been making some progress recently.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that there is no great enthusiasm for the extension of this illogical plane? Will he say how it fits in with the Government's policy of saving energy, when it is one of the most thirsty planes to be developed? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that he will resist any further absurd attempt to produce a stretched version, thereby pouring more public money into the biggest white elephant that the taxpayer has yet seen?

Mr. Shore: s: My hon. Friend has a point of view to which he is entitled, and which he has already expressed vigorously in the House. Any decision about the development of a stretched version is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. All I can say beyond that is that while I note my hon. Friend's lack of enthusiasm I, personally, feel somewhat differently, especially as we have gained a favourable judgment from Secretary Coleman.

Export Credits

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if action is being taken to limit export credits following the Rambouillet Summit.

Mr. Shore: Negotiations to achieve greater control over international credit competition were given fresh impetus by the decision of Heads of Government at Rambouillet that efforts should be intensified to bring them to a prompt conclusion. Discussions are continuing and I


hope that they will soon be successfully concluded.

Mr. Morris: Is it true that, following that meeting, American pressure has been brought upon the Six, which has resulted in an assurance from the Six that all export credits will be withdrawn over a period?

Mr. Shore: I have not heard of any proposal for the withdrawal of export credits, which I think are almost universally regarded as a valuable feature of export trade.

Woollen Goods (Imports)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made in negotiations with Eastern European countries on the restriction of woollen imports into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deakins: Discussions are continuing with the East European countries concerned about the level of their exports of woollen suits to this country.

Mr. Madden: Is my hon. Friend prepared to accept that the £4·80 suits from East Germany are the latest examples of the flood of cheap woollen imports from Eastern Europe? When will the talking stop and the action start? When will the Government introduce tougher import regulations to stop this country being the softest import market in the world?

Mr. Deakins: I remind the House that a wide range of woollen textiles and garments is already subject to quantitative restrictions when imported from Eastern Europe. We have invited the Governments of five Eastern European countries voluntarily to restrain their sending to us of woollen suits in 1976. This should close the gap which now exists.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not true that Communist countries can obtain textile machinery exported from this country on more favourable terms than those available to the British textile industry?

Mr. Deakins: It is true that textile industries anywhere in the world can obtain textile machinery from this country on credit terms that are internationally recognised and that we have to accept if our prosperous textile machinery indus-

try is to make its contribution, which is already very good, to British exports.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the wool textile industry's leading position in the country's export league, some of us from the West Riding strongly support the Government's efforts to make a British contribution to world freedom of trade, but that the manifest success of other countries in dumping in this country, with comparative ease, detracts from the Government's main policy?

Mr. Deakins: I was not aware that the Liberal Party was reverting to its former free trade policy, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. We have strong anti-dumping legislation, in line with the GATT code—a code that is universally adopted by OECD countries. I assure the hon. Gentleman—we have recently assured British industry—that any accusations of dumping are vigorously pursued.

Mr. Costain: Is it not ironical that the Prime Minister goes to Moscow to give the Russians special credit terms featuring low interest rates when such terms are not available to our own manufacturers, making it impossible for them to compete?

Mr. Deakins: I must point out to the House that this is one of the anomalies of international trade. If we are to increase British exports we must give our exporters the same credit facilities as are available to international competitors. The CBI would be the first to protest if we adopted the policy put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Civil Aviation

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will confirm his intention to publish his White Paper on civil aviation policy before the end of February.

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent words of Mr. Adam Thomson, of British Caledonian, which suggests that before the White Paper is ever produced the whole civil aviation review will be out of date? Would it not be better for the Secretary


of State to go back to the drawing board and consider such matters as dual designation, and even the Laker Skytrain?

Mr. Shore: I have seen many words written by Mr. Adam Thomson. To use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, I do not think it would be right to go back to the drawing board. I think that I must continue, and I hope to be able to report to the House before very long.

Mr. Corbett: I do not want my right hon. Friend to give away all the secrets of the coming White Paper, but will he whisper to me that there will be no paragraph in it which will lead to an increase of flights by night or day to Luton Airport, in the interest of many of my constituents getting a decent night's sleep?

Mr. Shore: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that Luton Airport does not feature in the White Paper.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his White Paper will require legislation for its implementation?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman must await the publication of the White Paper for the answer to that question.

Scottish Council (United States Trade Mission)

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what assistance his Department is giving to the forthcoming trade mission being sent by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to the United States of America to coincide with the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Deakins: The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has been informed that members of a mission under its sponsorship visiting the United States of America in September/October this year will be eligible for financial assistance at the appropriate rate under the Outward Mission Scheme administered by the British Overseas Trade Board.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister publicly acknowledge the excellent work that has been done for Scottish industry for many years by the Scottish Council, thus showing what can be done by independent Scottish initiative? Well he consider

suggesting to the Scottish Council that it takes with it on temporary loan a copy of Scotland's Declaration of Independence, signed at Arbroath six and a half centuries ago, which would be an excellent complement to the Magna Carta, which it also going to the United States?

Mr. Deakins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the wrong body or the wrong mission. In the United States at this moment there is a Scottish Council mobile exhibition entitled "The Best of Scotland". It is there for the bicentennial. I should have thought that that was the more appropriate organisation and mission to exhibit any historical documents. However, exports are concerned not with history but with our prosperity today and our ability to deliver to the market on time. It is that to which the Scottish exhibition is directed.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the success of the Scottish Council is due to the fact that it has direct links with the Department of Trade in London? Will he give an assurance that those direct links will not be broken?

Mr. Deakins: The Council has direct links with my Department for outward missions. For other of its activities it is responsible and answerable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that is a fair division of responsibility.

Tourism (Grants)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the present operation of Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 and the additional condition of restricting grants for approved tourist projects to those within development areas.

Mr. Deakins: Within present financial constraints, I am satisfied that the greatest benefits under the scheme can be obtained by concentrating resources on the development areas.

Mr. Hicks: Does the Minister agree that there are regions in the United Kingdom, outside the formal industrial development areas, that require investment by the tourist industry? Would


not much more locational selection be possible if the Government were to accept the concept of special tourist development areas?

Mr. Deakins: The present development areas already identify areas of economic development. They are not limited to industrial areas. It is the development areas that need assistance, including tourist assistance. If we were to do what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members would like us to do—in other words, to spread available funds over wider areas—we would do so only at the expense of the development areas in which we feel the need is greatest.

Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend accept—I speak as an hon. Member who represents a development area—that there are areas which are not development areas but which could be assisted from the point of view of tourism? I was convinced during my time at the Department that that matter should be pursued. Will my hon. Friend re-examine the situation?

Mr. Deakins: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, particularly because, as he said, he represents a development area. Nevertheless, although we have had many representations from a number of bodies and individuals, we feel that our policy on tourist guidelines announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade in November 1974 is the right one. We should allow time for that policy to be worked out and then see how well it operates in practice.

Mr. Adley: Does the Minister accept that since 1969 more and more people who take an interest in the tourist industry have concluded that, in terms of need, requirements vary in different areas? Therefore, will the Minister consider the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)?

Mr. Deakins: We are always willing to listen to representations, but we seek to cater for the needs not only of development areas but of rural areas.

Mr. Warren: I wish to press the Minister on this question. Although I would not wish to go to the constituency

of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for my holiday, I can assure him that there are many other places——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules by now.

Mr. Warren: Does the Minister agree that there are many areas other than development areas in which unemployment is over 10 per cent. and in which we need to see some tourist activity, though not connected with present legislation?

Mr. Deakins: This is a matter for regional and national tourist boards. The Question is related to Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. Other forms of assistance are available. I would have thought that areas such as Hastings and Bridlington could be catered for by assistance in other respects.

Motor Cars (Imports)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the level of imports of cars from the EEC.

Mr. Shore: In 1975, 278,000 cars were imported from the EEC, at a value of £337 million.

Mr. Marten: Will the Secretary of State explain why United Kingdom motor car exports to the EEC have so seriously declined since 1975, whereas motor car imports have increased? Was not a much advertised advantage of our entry into the EEC the wider markets announced by Lord Stokes? Has there not been a reverse effect?

Mr. Shore: I no more accepted the optimism of those forecasts than did the hon. Gentleman. I am not surprised that the situation in regard to the exchange of motor car exports between Britain and the EEC has turned out to be unfavourable to us. It is difficult to explain why the trends have been so bad. I believe that the answer goes back further than the hon. Gentleman suspects. In 1971 we imported 138,000 cars from the European Community; in 1975 the figure was 337,000. In 1971 we exported 217,000 cars, and last year the figure of exports was 121,000. The situation is not good enough. We must do better.

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now reconsider his decision not to introduce import controls to limit any further increase in the share of the British market taken by cars manufactured overseas.

Mr. Shore: My right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position clear on 17th December. My view is that the present level of import penetration is too high, but I am confident that it can be reduced by the efforts of our own industry.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are dangers that the share of the market may go higher still, and that if this happens it will pose a serious threat to our car industry and to the jobs of all the workers who depend upon it? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that our car exporters face reasonable terms when they export to competitor countries—in particular, Japan? Does he realise that many of us feel that the terms are very unfair?

Mr. Shore: I certainly think that there are dangers to our car industry. Indeed, the present level of import penetration gives some indication of the extent of this danger. Nevertheless, we are virtually in balance on exports and imports of completed cars and, as my hon. Friend will know, in the motor trade generally, taking account of commercial vehicles and components, we are still in a substantial surplus position.
We shall watch very carefully the practices of other countries, and we have had exchanges with the Japanese about liberalising some of their car testing procedures.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are not making enough cars to fulfil further export orders, and that the first essential for improving the balance of trade in cars is to make them instead of having strikes all the time?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the import figures are very salutary, since they provide an indication of both quantitative and qualitative competition for our own car manufacturers?

Mr. Shore: I agree only to the extent that production clearly is—and has been in the last two years—a crucial factor in

the export effort of the British car industry. Opposition Members should not ignore the causes of disputes and the general malaise in the car industry. It would be entirely wrong to try to pin the blame on the workers in the industry itself.
The hon. Gentleman should also be very much aware that certain models—particularly small cars—are not being produced in the quantity that we need at the present time.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: My right hon. Friend has often said that great care should be exercised concerning selective import controls, because of possible retaliation. Does this apply to Japan, which is flooding our country with cheap cars and other goods, and at the same time severely restricting her imports from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: I am watching the Japanese situation very carefully. When I went to Tokyo I had many exchanges with Mr. Komoto, the Japanese Trade Minister, on this question.
As my hon. Friend will know, we shall have at least reasonable stability for the next three months, following the talks that took place between the SMMT and the Japanese car manufacturers in London in December. I certainly accept that this is a problem that must be watched very closely, and I undertake to do so.

Mr. Michael Morris: When will the Government recognise that it is because of their dithering over the dumping of shoes, textiles, and so on, that hon. Members are intervening and that unless there is action on dumping every Member will wish to speak on the question of fair competition?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman really is deluding himself. The one area in which we can act—and in which I shall act—is against dumping of goods. I shall act with the full support of the House and in the full knowledge that I am acting within international economic law. There will be no reluctance whatever on the part of my Department to act against dumped goods, but it would be unrealistic not to understand that what we face, in the main, are not so much


dumped goods as goods of high quality produced at low cost.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Opposition support all sorts of duties, levies and restrictions on imports of food, which we need, but not on imports of motor cars, which we do not need?

Mr. Shore: I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is one of the extraordinary illogicalities and inconsistencies of Opposition Members.

Taiwan

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will now permit the issue of licences for all imports from Taiwan, affected by the recent restrictions, which were covered by irrevocable letters of credit issued before the restrictions were announced.

Mr. Deakins: No, Sir. Notices to Importers 1522 and 1534, published in Trade and Industry of 21st November 1975 and 16th January 1976, respectively, have already made it clear that licences will not be issued where 1976 quota levels have been exhausted.

Mr. Hordern: Is it not wrong that irrevocable letters of credit produced before these import restrictions were placed should not be allowed to continue? Do the Government recognise that considerable damage has been caused to our trade and our trade relations because of the effect on individual firms with longstanding arrangements with foreign suppliers?

Mr. Deakins: Whenever we impose import restrictions it causes disruption in trade, in terms of established relationships between international traders in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I would not expect goods, either in transit from Taiwan or on the dockside here paid for under irrevocable letters of credit and falling within quota headings where quotas for 1975 and 1976 have been exhausted, to be admitted until 1977. I realise that these restrictions will cause a certain inconvenience and, possibly, some financial embarrassment and loss to certain importers, but against that we must consider the wider needs of the British textile industry.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister realise that his answer will give some satisfaction to the textile industry when it is realised that the practice of irrevocable letters of credit, together with the building up of imports prior to restrictions being imposed, should not be encouraged and should be eliminated for the future?

Mr. Deakins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The difficulty that arose in respect of goods from Taiwan was exceptional, because restrictions were not negotiated and imposed until almost two-thirds of the way through the year to which they were due to relate. Since there was an untoward increase in imports from Taiwan in the first eight-month period, it left nothing at all for the rest of 1975 or 1976.

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the current working of Export Credits Guarantee Department procedures.

Mr. Deakins: Yes, Sir. Naturally we keep our procedures under review in the light of changing circumstances.

Mr. Pattie: Is the Minister aware that British companies have recently been discouraged from tendering for turnkey projects in the Middle East because the ECGD has insisted on guarantees even where Arab development funds are involved? Does he agree that the ECGD should be encouraged to be more flexible in terms of Section 2 business?

Mr. Deakins: The ECGD will be more flexible on Section 2 business, provided that the criteria for assessing applications under that provision are adhered to. It refers to business undertaken not on commercial grounds but in the national interest. In regard to the Arab Fund, officials from my Department will visit the Kuwait headquarters of the Fund shortly to discuss closer co-operation to enable the ECGD facilities and money from the Fund to work together more easily in order to finance new business in countries that otherwise might not be assessed for credit of that kind.

Mr. Tim Renton: To what extent are ECGD cost escalation insurance policies being used by British manufacturers?


Furthermore, what discussions are taking place with the French, who offer more extensive benefits than we do in this respect?

Mr. Deakins: On the question of cost escalation, British industry was a little unhappy with the scheme announced last year. We have made distinct improvements, culminating in the series announced in December 1975. It is too early to say what extra business has resulted following those considerable improvements. Nevertheless, having spoken to the CBI committee on these matters, I am confident that we have gone a long way towards meeting the demands that British industry placed on us in terms of improving the cost escalation scheme.
Obviously, we are anxious to ensure that the benefits of the French scheme do not exceed those of our own. We hope, from the point of view of public expenditure, that a time will come when we can both get rid of our schemes. We introduced our scheme only because the French introduced theirs.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has an all-time record for the length of an answer.

Anti-Dumping Legislation

Mr. Cope: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now consider introducing legislation to prevent dumping on the lines of the Australian Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975.

Mr. Deakins: I am satisfied that the existing United Kingdom legislation is adequate to deal with injury to British industry by dumped or subsidised imports. I am always willing, however, to consider constructive suggestions for ways in which the implementation of the Act might be improved. The Australian Act is intended to satisfy the requirements of the GATT Anti-Dumping Code, as is our own Act.

Mr. Cope: Do the Minister and the Government realise that there is a valuable provision in the Australian Act by means of which a temporary stoppage can be put on imports of a particular commodity when there is a threat of dumping, in a similar way to an injunction in the courts? Would not that be

an invaluable feature of legislation in this country as well?

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the case of the £4·80 suits—which were the subject of considerable public concern just before the weekend and over the weekend—we have put out a vigorous statement threatening the very sort of action for which the hon. Gentleman asked. Our very strong statement said that we would stand prepared to take anti-dumping action, even though the goods have not actually been landed in this country.

Mr. Higgins: Does the Minister not agree that it is only the Government Front Bench which is satisfied with the anti-dumping procedures? What steps is he proposing to take on this matter in the multinational trade negotiations now taking place?

Mr. Deakins: As a nation we are not participating in the GATT multinational trade negotiations, since we do not speak there with a separate voice. It is the European Commission that takes the lead. We are willing to discuss with our fellow member States in Western Europe what action should be taken, if necessary, to tighten up the procedures, but I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that tightening up anti-dumping procedures is a two-edged weapon, which could be used against this country, if necessary, for the further development of international trade.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In giving further consideration to anti-dumping measures, will the Under-Secretary pay attention to incentives, offered by Governments of countries in the Far East and Middle East particularly, to aid companies to export to this country? Will the Under-Secretary pay attention to the advantage that that must give to the exporters in the countries concerned and the disadvantage to industries in this country?

Mr. Deakins: Certainly, but it is not merely the Governments of developing countries who are giving financial incentives for exports to the richer countries of the world. We do it ourselves. I thought it was universally accepted in this House, through the generalised scheme of preferences negotiated by the EEC, which allows many developing countries to sell


goods to Europe—and to Britain in particular—at very low tariff levels and sometimes with no tariffs or duties at all. This is not merely a policy of host Governments; it is a policy that we are fostering ourselves.

Bankruptcies and Liquidations

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is aware of the high level of bankruptcies and liquidations in recent months; and if he will take steps to alleviate the situation.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am well aware of the high level of bankruptcies and insolvencies, which reflects the recession of the last year.
The Government have made clear their commitment to an expanding and profitable manufacturing sector, and to this end have taken steps to ensure that a greater share of our national resources is made available for productive investment.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there is a shocking increase in these figures, and that a large proportion of the people concerned are self-employed or small business men? Is the Minister further aware that on Friday 30th January 1976, with support from both sides, this House carried a motion calling upon Her Majesty's Government
 to find means of alleviating the taxation and other burdens which threaten the existence
of small businesses.
Will the Minister therefore take some more positive action—or ensure that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does—to bring us into line with the Resolution of the House.

Mr. Davis: The action to be taken to deal with this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but action has already been taken, as the hon. Gentleman will know. In a time of recession, difficulties of this kind inevitably follow. There has been a rise in unemployment. There has been a rise in liquidations and bankruptcies. I add only that if we were to follow the general strategy announced by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) we should not be trying simply to get out of the wood, as we are trying to do; the nation would be entering a quicksand.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem in British industry is that too many people in manufacturing Industry are there to make money rather than goods? Is he aware, further, that there is a firm in my constituency—Sageways, Abercynon—which has a full order book and good industrial relations and yet the receiver has been put in this week to close down its factory?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend knows that that is not essentially a matter for me. If I were to engage in a dialogue with him along those lines 1 should be stopped by Mr. Speaker.

ANGOLA (BRITISH MERCENARIES)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what study he has made of the reports of deaths of British mercenaries in Angola, and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The whole House will be concerned at the reports in today's Press that a group of British mercenaries were executed in Northern Angola on or about 3rd February.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been in the closest touch with Kinshasa, but Her Majesty's Ambassador there is not yet in a position to confirm or to deny that executions have taken place and, if they have, still less who is responsible for the executions. From all the facts available, however, I regret to inform the House that it appears probable that tragic incidents, including the loss of life of a num-mer of recruited mercenaries, have taken place. It is equally the case, on the information available to me, that a considerable number have also been killed in warlike operations.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make a fuller statement tomorrow, which will include any further information received from Kinshasa, and will also deal with some of the wider issues involved.

Mr. Maudling: This is clearly a bloody business. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister will be making a fuller


statement tomorrow, would not it be wise to leave it at that for today?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House joins him in feeling a sense of horror at these dreadful deaths and hopes that the figures given are exaggerated? Will he agree, however, that there is a need to look at the whole of the mercenary situation and the question that the very existence of mercenaries in such numbers in Angola is creating a wrong impression in parts of black Africa——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) did not hear: there is to be a fuller statement on the broad issues tomorrow.

Mr. Roberts: When my right hon. Friend is preparing his fuller statement, will he consider the possibility of using some additional powers to deal with this situation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend expresses the hope that the figures quoted in the Press are exaggerated. I share his hope, but I have doubts about it on such limited information as is available, though there is still some argument about how they met their deaths. But as to the substantial numbers killed in warlike operations, I fear that there is no doubt that these are very considerable.
With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I shall be dealing with wider issues in the statement which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. I hope to make tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since this matter can come up again tomorrow on the fuller detail, we had better move on to the further Private Notice Question.

GUATEMALA EARTHQUAKE (AID)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement concerning emergency aid to the earthquake victims in Guatemala.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): I am sure the whole House would wish to record our sense of shock at this disaster and our deep sympathy for the many thousands of bereaved, injured and homeless people.
Her Majesty's Government conveyed through the British Consul in Guatemala City an offer of immediate help as soon as the news of the disaster first reached London. The Guatemalan Foreign Minister conveyed his thanks on 5th February, indicating that Her Majesty's Government would be informed if help was needed when the position was a little clearer. From the outset, the Disaster Unit of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been in close touch with the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator and with the Disasters Emergency Committee of the voluntary agencies in this country; and, in view of the mounting evidence of human need and suffering, an aircraft has been chartered to take to Guatemala 250 tents, blankets, warm clothing and a sanitation unit. The operation is being jointly financed by Her Majesty's Government and the British voluntary societies. If the necessary clearance can be obtained from the Guatemalan authorities, the plane will leave Gatwick at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: While I accept that the statement of the Government's intentions and good wishes will be very much welcomed in the House and the country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to persist in his efforts to ensure that the Guatemalan authorities permit the allocation of the aid which we are so anxious to give? Will he seek to get the acceptance by the Guatemalan authorities of the assistance of the British forces stationed in Belize? Does he agree from past experience that the effects of these disasters are usually very much worse in the aftermath, in terms of deaths from starvation and disease following such disasters, than the immediate effects? Will he ask the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer for additional financial assistance so that we can give long-term rehabilitation aid in addition to and not in substitution for existing aid programmes?

Mr. Prentice: We hope that the Guatemalan authorities will accept the help in the form of the plane-load of


relief supplies that I have mentioned and possibly an extension of this. The position at the moment is that massive help is coming from the United States and some Latin American countries, which are clearly in a better position to give immediate help. What is coming from Britain and other European countries at the moment is very small by comparison. But it is right that we should make contributions. It may be that relatively we can do more in the rehabilitation period rather than in the immediate period.
I am glad to tell the House that within the last half hour I have had some discussions with leaders of Oxfam. Their representatives in the country have now been given authority to operate extensively in the San Martin area. I am glad that the authorities are anxious and willing to make use of their help.

Sir Bernard Braine: From this side of the House, may I congratulate the Government on the prompt action they have taken so far? It is right that an immediate and generous response should be made to suffering in this and other natural disasters. Bearing in mind the Nicaraguan experience, however, can the right hon. Gentleman give some reassurance that aid, money and materials—whether from the Government or from the voluntary agencies—now flowing in can be used effectively and that the Guatemalan Government have the facilities to ensure that such aid is swiftly deployed and properly used?

Mr. Prentice: It is important that whatever aid is sent is sent with the agreement of and in co-ordination with the Guatemalan authorities. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is the danger that in these situations the facilities can get clogged with unsolicited supplies. Therefore, we are not sending the sort of help that is not required. For example, it has been made clear to us that expatriate medical staff are not required at this stage, and, therefore, there is no question of that. We shall be looking at this aspect carefully and keeping in very close touch with the situation on the ground through our consul and through the representatives of the voluntary agencies who are there.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does my right hon. Friend recall the excellent record of the

RAF in disaster relief, and will he undertake to do all he can to use Service transport whenever it is available rather than outside contractors?

Mr. Prentice: Only if such assistance were welcomed by the Guatemalan authorities.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the Minister realise that the experience of the Nicaraguan disaster, which I saw, suggests that if we can help it would be desirable to do so on a permanent basis with a presence there rather than by a purely financial form of assistance which might be overlooked or forgotten by the Guatemalans?

Mr. Prentice: Help is being given by representatives of a number of voluntary agencies in this country. The supplies we are sending out are those which they think are relevant to the immediate situation and which have also been identified by the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator.

Dr. Bray: Will my right hon. Friend confirm news reports that, in contrast with the Nicaraguan disaster, freight is being cleared promptly from the airport, that there have been no observed incidents of looting or disorder by troops or police and that the aid being given is being used effectively?

Mr. Prentice: That is my information. None of the British aid has yet arrived. Most of the aid arriving at the moment is from the United States or other countries in North and South America. My information is that it is being disbursed effectively.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the anxiety among some British families about the mercifully few British people who are apparently in Guatemala, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say what is the position about the British Mission in Guatemala City? What arrangements are being made to notify families in this country of the whereabouts and the situation of their relatives as and when that is possible?

Mr. Prentice: That is not strictly a matter for me. I will convey the gist of the question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. No doubt a letter will be sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. Tugendhat: May I confirm that everyone on the Conservative side of the House shares the Minister's shock and sympathy for the people of Guatemala? May I congratulate him on the speed with which his Department has reacted?

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ARMED FORCES) BILL (ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE)

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise the question of the incident which arose last Friday at or about four o'clock when unfortunately, and I am sure inadvertently, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) talked out my Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Bill. Reference was made at that point by the occupant of the Chair to certain devices which indicate to the Chair the exact time. I believe I am correct in saying that, whatever those devices may indicate, they do not indicate it to the Chamber as a whole or to hon. Members in the Chamber.
May I suggest that it is unfortunate that there should be confusion at such important moments because of there apparently being two times prevailing in the Chamber? This being so, would it not be worth while inviting someone to investigate the possibility of displaying these devices to the Chamber as a whole if it is not possible to synchronise the other clocks upon which we rely?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Had I been here, and I am pleased to say that I was not, I would have done exactly the same as Mr. Deputy Speaker did. The red light that shows in front of me shows only for the occupant of the Chair and not for the rest of the House. I am assured that the times coincide and that a check is made every day on the clocks. I shall, of course, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DEBATE (DOCUMENTATION)

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your protection and guidance? As reported at col. 1417 of the Official Report for Thursday 5th February, the Leader of the House, in announcing the business for this week, said that on Thursday there would be a motion on EEC documents on agriculture. These documents were not available in the Vote Office on Friday. There was no indication from the announcement by the Leader of the House which documents are to be debated. Hon. Members will not have that information officially until the Order Paper is printed on Thursday. The documents concerned are the price proposals for 1976–77 for the common agricultural policy, which is about the most important thing in the European Community. These documents run to two volumes. Any Member wanting to take them out of the Vote Office on Thursday morning will have a hell of a lot of reading to do between then and the debate in the evening.
There is another problem. Some of us are members of the Committee on Agriculture of the EEC Parliament. We have been seeking to represent the views of this House on these documents at four separate meetings. On Thursday we shall be at Strasbourg voting on these very proposals. We shall therefore be unable to take part in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can always look to me for protection and guidance. The points she has raised are matters for the Government in the arrangement of their business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Motions in the name of Mr. Walter Harrison relating to Abortion may, if not already disposed of, be made after Ten o'clock, though opposed, and the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Coleman.]

FOREIGN POLICY AND MORALITY

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I beg to move,
That this House, deeply deploring the increased use of torture, imprisonment without trial, arbitrary executions and other flagrant abuses of the rights of individuals in a growing number of countries, and the support from abroad given openly or in a clandestine manner to reactionary individuals or cliques seeking to deny political freedom and economic advance to their peoples, calls upon Her Majesty's Government vigorously to condemn all abuses of human rights wherever they occur, to refuse to supply arms and, in the worst cases, aid to governments which perpetuate such abuses, and to oppose most strenuously military or clandestine interventions by outside powers into any country in which the mass of the people clearly do not support such an intervention.
The eighteen and nineteen centuries saw the birth of a great democratic and humanitarian movement which formulated and demanded the rights of man, which denounced cruelty and torture and postulated a more civilised, humane and moral world. Unfortunately, despite the progress made in some areas, the twentieth century has seen not merely the perpetuation of inhumanity and the denial of human rights but an increase in the scale and intensity of terror and horror which would have shocked earlier generations.
The resources of science have been applied not only to the welfare of man but to the refinement of the means of his destruction. Apart from two world wars in which tens of millions of people died, we have had the unspeakable horrors of Nazism and Stalinism in which the last vestiges of human values were trampled underfoot.
Since the end of the Second World War millions of completely innocent people have been callously done to death in Korea, Vietnam, Nigeria and many other places. Today, despite all our scientific know-how and our professions of concern, perhaps 1,000 million of our fellow members of the human race have a per capita income of less than £50 a year.
At the same time humanity spends, under the heading of defence, more than $200,000 million per annum on arms

for military purposes, the equivalent of the gross national product of all the developing countries of Africa, the Middle East and Southern Asia put together. Much of this money is spent not for defence but for the purposes of oppression. Since military policy is an adjunct of foreign policy, we are entitled to ask ourselves whether that policy is compatible with the ideas to which we pay lip service, whether it is compatible with what we describe as morality.
Later this evening we shall be debating a subject which many hon. Members and many fellow citizens rightly regard as a moral issue of fundamental import. It concerns the unborn. The issue of the human rights of those now living and of generations still to come should arouse similar moral fervour from the men and women of this House and this country. I make no apology for linking foreign policy with morality in the title of my motion.
The motion demands that the Government in their foreign policy should deplore
 the increased use of torutre, imprisonment without trial, arbitrary executions and other flagrant abuses
of human rights wherever they occur.
I have never believed that those who take the stand that I do as a Socialist and humanist should avert their eyes from or remain silent about infringements of human rights in countries which claim to be Socialist. I therefore deplore, as do many of my hon. Friends, the persecution of Soviet dissidents irrespective of whether I agree with their views. The imprisonment, exile, and confinement in mental institutions of men and women merely for criticising Soviet society is indefensible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I equally deplore the appalling and illegal treatment meted out to those gallant Czech men and women who stood, and still stand, with Anton Dubcek for Socialism with a human face.
If we condemn abuses there, we condemn them elsewhere.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Des Warren.

Mr. Newens: The appalling horrors of Chile since 1973 are now well known. We have recently been reminded of them by the case of Dr. Sheila Cassidy, a


British subject who underwent a vile form of torture.
The horrors of Brazil are not so well known but they were illustrated by the case of a well-known television personality, Vladimir Herzog, of Sao Paulo, who willingly went to the headquarters of the Second Army one Saturday morning last October. On Saturday afternoon his body was returned to his widow in a sealed coffin and an announcement was made to the effect that he committed suicide after confessing that he was a Communist. Many others have suffered a similar fate. It is true that General Eduardo D'Avila, the commander of the Second Army, has now been sacked, but he has not been brought to trial and, in fact, was offered another post.
We must recognise that Brazil, since the 1964 coup against a democratically elected Government, has been ruled by imprisonment, torture, murder and crimes against humanity. I have heard it said—I do not know whether it is true—that President Geisel is to make an official visit to this country. We should tell him quite frankly that we do not want him here until his vile régime is cleaned up. We should tell him that we will not supply him with arms and that we do not intend to avert our eyes from the crimes committed against humanity in his country.
I wish to refer to two other countries with which we have close relations—Indonesia and Iran. The worst massacre since the Nazi gas chambers occurred in Indonesia in 1965 when between 250,000 and 1 million people were murdered following an attempted coup by disgruntled army officers. There are still tens of thousands of political prisoners in confinement in Indonesia. Amnesty International says that the number is 70,000, other sources say 100,000 and the Government say that the figure is much smaller, but we all know that many tens of thousands of political prisoners are there. Yet British aid to Indonesia has risen consistently and is now higher than that given to any other Third World country outside the Commonwealth. Her Majesty the Queen was advised to make an official visit in 1974 to Indonesia to confer the accolade of respectability on a régime whose record on human rights is monstrous.
A similar story can be told in the case of Iran. I am aware of the trade prospects and of our needs, but should we not refuse to close our eyes to the fact that since the Shah's regime was re-established by the overthrow of Dr. Mossadeq in 1953 rule in that country has been carried on by means of the secret military trial, by torture and by execution on a tremendous scale? A group of prisoners at whose trial in Iran in 1969 my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) was present were shot last year while being transferred to another prison. We continually receive reports of secret executions after secret trials. Democracy in Iran is a farce; it does not exist.
I could cite many other countries. The Foundation for the Study of Plural Societies, based in The Hague, recently published two large volumes entitled "Case Studies on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". They make very dismal reading. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in a recent Fabian pamphlet, stated that
a Labour Foreign Secretary cannot be a Don Quixote tilting at every windmill.
but if a Labour Secretary of State turns away from too many of these causes it suggests that he does not care and that the Labour Party does not care about the humanitarian and Socialist principles on which it was founded.
It is not only moral to stand up against abuses of human rights but it is in our long-term interests to do so, because sooner or later the old order will be overthrown by new forces. As populations whose ancestors have been ground down by poverty and oppression from time immemorial become conscious of their rights, they will overthrow their oppressors. The revolt against repression is as old as the history of civilisation, but it is in our day that the populations of the countries of the Third World are shaking off their shackles. Our foreign policy should encourage and nurture those forces. It should stretch out to them a helping hand, and it should influence them in the standards that they impose, because that is in our long-term interests.
Unfortunately that is not our usual policy and, together with our allies, especially the United States, we have frequently cast in our lot with the forces of reaction. Vietnam was an example of the sort of thing which can happen. There


is an appalling blot on any claim that Britain may make to be the land of the free in that in Oman we supported until 1970 a reactionary Sultan who forbade any innovation in his country and retained slavery. Since 1970 we have aided his son in the suppression of a liberation movement, not in the name of democracy, trade union freedom and human rights but in the cause of reaction. [Interruption.] Opposition hon. Members show by their laughter their lack of concern about these issues.
We are in danger of doing the same in Angola. The genuine liberation movement in Angola was the MPLA and was recognised as such by the Labour Party. The basis of its policy was non-alignment, and the failure of our Government to act to prevent unscrupulous men from recruiting mercenaries in the hope of gain not merely endanger our future relations with an independent Angola but places British citizens, foolish though they may be, in an unenviable position under commanders with nothing in common with humanity.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)rose——

Mr. Newens: I shall give way, but it will be the only time, because this is a short debate.

Mr. Cormack: What are 12,000 Cubans doing in Angola? Are they tourists? Are they there for the good of their health? What are the Russians doing there?

Mr. Newens: Everybody knows what the Cubans are doing there. Had we not pursued in so many instances a policy of support for reaction, we should not be driving the Angolans, whose policy is one of non-alignment, into the arms of people the hon. Gentleman does not like.
It is totally wrong that the United States and sometimes we ourselves have been prepared to support movements which are totally against progress. The policy of the United States particularly has been to intervene everywhere in a clandestine or open way in support of reaction—in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In the long run they will lose out as a result.
As I have said, I have no brief for the KGB and I deplore its crimes. But I equally deplore the record of the CIA, which has been based on deceit, sleight of hand, use of criminal elements and utter cynicism about human rights and is a disgrace to any society that considers itself democratic.
I advise hon. Members to get from the Library the Interim Report of the United States Senate Committee on alleged assassination plots by the CIA against foreign leaders. It provides evidence of plots against five—Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, Rafael Trujillo, Ngo Dinh Diem and General Rene Schneider. Four of those five, some of whom I would not regard as progressive, were assassinated. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot take it when I am explaining what the CIA has done. I have made clear my view of the KGB.
That report shows the approval given at the highest level in the United States in the past for the recruitment of assassination squads. The type of recruit they sought is illustrated by a quotation in which one recruit was described as
 essentially a stateless soldier of fortune…a forger and a former bank robber.
In the case of Fidel Castro, Salvatore Giancana, who was on the United States Attorney-General's list of the 10 most wanted criminals, was recruited for an assassination-squad to suit the purposes of the CIA. Santo Trafficante, the Cosa Nostra or Mafia chieftain in Cuba, was also recruited.
Can a democratic society justify recruiting such elements to carry out its foreign policy? If any hon. Member opposite justifies that, it shows the moral quality of the foreign policy which he defends.
The CIA has an astonishing record of covert intervention in Chile, Vietnam, Iran, Guyana, Greece, Italy, throughout Africa and the Middle East. This has consisted of direct intervention or the subversive use of money. As Chile showed, Dr. Henry Kissinger's hands are not clean in this matter. He has been definitely and directly involved. I therefore very much defend the revelations recently by John Marks, Victor Marchetti and Philip Agee.
It is time that we knew what the CIA has been getting up to. CIA officers are


attached to most United States embassies, including that in London. They have nothing to do with right of national self-determination, human rights, morality or British foreign policy, and it is time that we told them to go home.

Mr. Churchill: What about your friends?

Mr. Newens: I would equally tell the KGB to go home.
This year the United States celebrates the two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The human rights proclaimed in the words of Thomas Jefferson, including the right of rebellion, based on the teachings of that great Englishman Tom Paine, were great steps forward, but the foreign policy of United States Administration in recent years—in certain respects, unfortunately, supported by the United Kingdom—is incompatible with those ideas.
It is high time that we decided to speak out clearly on moral issues about which we ought to be concerned. One of my hon. Friends told me when he read the motion that foreign policy and morality were incompatible. I say to him and to the House that any foreign policy which is not based upon the principles of morality and the recognition and defence of human rights is not in our long-terminterests.

Mr. Cormack: Tell Brezhnev.

Mr. Newens: I will tell not only Brezhnev but anybody else. The hon. Gentleman should read the motion, since it refers to human rights everywhere. I have already taken up that point.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that his motion condemns foreign intervention wherever it comes from, but to get it absolutely clear, since his terms so far have been somewhat ambiguous, will he say whether he unequivocally condemns the present foreign intervention of the Soviet Union and Cuba in Angola?

Mr. Newens: I am sorry that I gave way. I dealt with that point earlier. [Interruption.] I am glad to notice that the hon. Gentleman has allies among some of my hon. Friends, who have been very quiet about Indonesia, Iran and other places—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to be brief so as to give others a chance. I hope that the House will listen to his point of view with respect.

Mr. Newens: Ultimately I want the people of Angola to be able to decide their own affairs with no foreign troops on their soil, but as long as we allow covert activities partly based on this country and open activities based in this country to send forces to movements with no basis in humanity we must accept that we will drive them to rely more and more on the Cubans and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially since, as he knows, I returned from Angola just the other day, having spent some time in Luanda. Would he accept that the MPLA leaders have made it clear that they invited the Cubans into Angola only because they were faced with massive intervention by South African regular forces and that all they want is the opportunity to free their country from oppression and to begin to develop their own society?

Mr. Newens: It is, perhaps, instructive that in my speech I was prepared to condemn any abuse of human rights, in the Soviet Union as well as in other parts of the world. However, Conservative Members have merely shouted out parrot cries, condemning one side only. On the issue of Angola we should also recognise the matter of the intervention of racialist South Africa. There can be no justification for intervention by South Africa.
I address the House today as a Socialist and a humanist who makes no apology for dreaming and working for a new world in which the earth's resources will be fully used to provide an opportunity for a full life for all men and not merely for a privileged few. I hope, however, that even those hon. Members who do not completely agree with me as a Socialist and an internationalist will at least support the motion, because we should all recognise that at this stage of world history it is in our interests to condemn abuses of human rights and intervention wherever they may take place.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: When the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) began his remarks I was encouraged by the seemingly evenhanded way in which he approached what is a very real and rather baffling problem, namely, how to reconcile the defence of a country's interests with moral principles. However, the more I listened to the hon. Gentleman, the more his condemnations of what goes on in the Soviet bloc became perfunctory. He chose to illustrate his argument almost entirely by reference to countries outside the Soviet bloc and in many cases countries which are threatened by it.
The problem of how we can reconcile the duties of public men to defend the interests of their people with moral principle is difficult. As the Foreign Secretary said, a country of medium strength such as ours has to be somewhat selective.
I am sure the hon. Member for Harlow will agree that in time of war all means are fair. I took part myself in what proved to be an unsuccessful attempt to kill Chancellor Hitler. I do not think any hon. Member would have held it against me if I had pulled that off. I also helped to employ a forger who was doing time in Dartmoor to forge passports which enabled people to escape from occupied Europe. That was in war time.
We all look to a day when there will be real peace and relations between States will be governed by the rules laid down in a series of international agreements. However, we live in a world which is neither at peace nor at war. The Soviet Union is the first to admit that. Mr. Brezhnev made it extremely clear recently that the ideological struggle between the Communist and non-Communist world continues and that it is the duty of the Soviet Union to give all possible help, both moral and material, to the opponents of the non-Communist world. He pointed that out clearly when President Giscard d'Estaing was in Moscow and called for ideological détente. At the very same banquet at which the President of France spoke he received a reply from Mr. Brezhnev saying that there could be no ideological détente. The point was rubbed in by the two-days-long "non-speak "which followed that banquet.
There is a constant struggle going on. Sometimes it is more or less peaceful but sometimes, as in Angola and recently in the Lebanon, it is violent. In selecting the task of the British Government, our first duty is to guard against the main threat to the values in which we believe—both the material standard of living of our people and the spiritual values. They are threatened at present from only one source—that is, from Soviet imperialism, not from Communism. The Chinese are not threatening us, nor are the Yugoslavs. We are being threatened by Soviet imperialism. There is a reason for this which is not fully understood.
The Soviet Union is an empire and around it there is a ring of client States. It has also established a Vatican-like position in relation to a number of Communist Parties outside. This imperial Power is mainly ruled by a largist group of Russians who constitute the ruling class of the empire. They have climbed to the positions of power and privilege which they now enjoy over pyramids of corpses of their fellow citizens and over the shoulders of the inmates of the Gulag Archipelago. They can neither excuse their crimes nor justify the privileges that they enjoy in relation to the mass of the people except by maintaining international tension. To this end they have built up vast armed forces and a vast secret police and established a considerable measure of influence over Communist Parties outside the Soviet Union. All these carry a dynamic of their own. A big army wants to get bigger, as does a big secret service. This is the driving force which drives the Soviet empire forward and makes it a serious threat to the rest of us, and leads it whenever it sees an opportunity to expand—as it saw in Angola and in the Lebanon—to make the most of that opportunity.
There is a big difference between the CIA and the KGB. Both are secret services and both indulge in the kind of operations which are better not discussed. However, one tries to defend the free world and the other tries to advance the designs of Soviet imperialism.

Mr. Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether or not he approves of the methods of the CIA in Chile and in many other countries, which included the use of criminal elements and


other methods which I mentioned in my remarks? Does he not agree that the situation and the murders which occur in places such as Indonesia cannot be attributed to the causes to which he puts down the whole of the free world troubles?

Mr. Amery: I have often criticised the CIA. I criticised the help which it gave to Nasser and to Fidel Castro in his early days.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Amery: I am not joking. The CIA gave real support to Castro in the early days. I have also criticised the part that it played, no doubt inadvertently, in the recent coup in Cyprus. But, whatever mistake our friends and allies may sometimes make, we must not forget that we owe the CIA an enormous debt. Anyone who has worked in a defence or foreign affairs department in Government will know how much we owe to the CIA for our existing security. The CIA has been the principal eye of NATO and it has often stopped situations from developing which could have been much to our detriment, and on occasions it has even succeeded in reversing them.
I greatly regret that our American friends should now indulge in this orgy of masochism over the CIA. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harlow should be taking the pleasure of a voyeur while it all goes on.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I take my right hon. Friend's point and agree entirely with him. However, does he think that the day may ever dawn when there will be a similar masochism in the Soviet Union and senates of Russians will be pouring out thousands of words—which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) will be able to look up in the Library—about the malefactors of the KGB?

Mr. Amery: Yes, I believe that it will come; because if we stand firm and prevent the further expansion of Soviet imperialism I believe that, like all empires, it will cease to expand and will break up internally. It may become a commonwealth, first of all perhaps a

Socialist commonwealth, and then bit by bit different elements in it will break away, as Yugoslavia and China broke away. As these things happen, so we shall get more and more revelations about what has gone on and is going on inside. However, the condition precedent to that happy eventuality is that we should stand firm and not give way to them. That means, first, maintaining our strength.
There is to be an important conference at York shortly, in which the hon. Member for Harlow is to play a prominent part, calling for world disarmament. Hon. Members who have been to the Palace of Nations at Geneva will have seen outside the great hall the words coined by Lord Robert Cecil, "Disarm or perish ". They were written in 1930.
We did disarm, and millions perished as a result. All of us here know perfectly well that if Britain and France had not disarmed there would have been no Second World War. Now I see that Lord Soper is calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament of this country. We must be absolutely clear that in the nuclear world in which we live there is no real neutrality for any non-nuclear Power. It either has to have its own nuclear power—in which case it could conceivably be neutral—or it must shelter under some other nuclear umbrella.
The alternative is the position in which Finland is today. In Finland there are still democratic institutions for the time being. The Soviet boa constrictor often enslaves its prey before it crushes and eats it. We see in Poland a new constitution coming forward which pretty well establishes a Soviet protectorate over Poland in legal terms. I shall be interested to see how genuine is the reported conversion of M. Marchais in France by the attitude that he adopts towards the French nuclear weapon.
No doubt religious bodies will be represented in plenty at the York conference. We know how Lord Soper, Bishop Stockwood and Bishop Huddleston and others champion the causes very often of Marxist guerrilla movements in Africa, and even pass round the plate to help them. "Guerrilla" Sunday has become quite a common feature in many of our churches. However, I was a little surprised to see that when, in the Lebanon the other day, one


of the oldest Christian communities, the Maronite community, was threatened almost with extermination, not one voice was raised in Rome, Canterbury or anywhere else. There was not much trade union solidarity among the Churches there.
I appreciate the fact that the Moslems in the Lebanon had grievances. So had the Sudetenland Germans in Czechoslovakia. However, what was scandalous about what happened in the Lebanon was that the matter was dictated by the intervention of Palestinian terrorists invading the country from Syria. That was dangerous, too, for the free world, because Syria is one of the Arab countries that is closest to the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member referred to the problem of mercenaries. We shall hear more about that tomorrow when the Prime Minister speaks to the House. We are all very much under the impression of the grim news that we read this morning. But we must not deprecate mercenaries too much. Lord Byron was a mercenary. I should have thought that many people in the Labour Party would take a pride in the record of the Attlee battalion in the International Brigade. I knew many of those people. Many did not go for reasons of idealism. Many went—[Interruption.] Of course they were mercenaries. I knew some of them. I interviewed many when I was a war correspondent.
The Gurkhas have done tremendous service for this country. They are mercenaries too. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Sultanate of Oman. He showed an abysmal ignorance of the history of that country. Up to 1970 I absolutely agree that the regime was not a progressive regime, because the Sultan had no money. The oil had not then been struck. The country is now pushing rapidly ahead. Thanks to not only Regular British officers who have gone there but also to some British mercenaries, contract officers, the Sultan's forces have secured internal stability. Thanks to that, the oil from the Persian Gulf is safe—and the hon. Gentleman's constituents and all our constituents have at least a chance of seeing the wheels of industry and of our motor cars turning.
However, when it comes to Angola, surely if there be any scandal about

mercenaries it is the mass invasion by at least 12,000—it may be more—Cubans with Soviet technical support. I am now told that there are also Czech officers there as well.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the cause of the liberation of peoples, the progressive movement to independence and all these things. I say frankly to him—I doubt whether he will agree with what I say—that it may well have been in our self-interest to withdraw from the sub-continent of India and from Africa. It may well have been in Britain's self-interest not to shoulder the burden any more. However, let us not pretend that it was a moral decision. Millions of graves in India, what went on in Zanzibar and the civil war in Nigeria—all these things are a consequence of that withdrawal. While withdrawal may have been self-interested, let us not pretend that it was particularly honourable or particularly moral.
I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech. The House of Commons must make a choice. We cannot police the world any more. The Secretary of State for Defence has often reminded us of that fact. Both sides of the House have no illusions about that. We cannot put matters right everywhere, stop torture everywhere or break off relations with other countries because they do things that we do not like. The hon. Gentleman said that we should not invite the President of Brazil to come here, but his right hon. Friend is trying to invite Mr. Brezhnev to come from Moscow. Morally there is no difference between the two—although President Geisel has been less long in the job than the other fellow.
We must decide where to concentrate our effort. Our first duty is to the people of this island: to preserve their living standards, their freedom and their moral values.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) gave many examples of Governments falling away from morality. Some of his illustrations make a terrible indictment of our nation States. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Mr. Amery) did not take up one or two particular examples, because he was dealing with the CIA,


particularly in relation to Chile. He might have touched on that.
I want to place some facts on the other side of the balance. I believe that we are more moral than my hon. Friend believes. I wish to illustrate that. In his motion my hon. Friend refers to the refusal of aid to Governments of which we do not approve. This is the fundamental point, I believe, in the morality of a large part of our foreign policy since the war. Aid provided by the Western industrialised countries and this country in particular had a very important part to play, and over the last 30 years this has happened.
Few hon. Members will remember that after the war we had the problem of a devastated and defeated Germany and a defeated but not devastated Japan. We supplied aid although we were very weakened. With the enormous resources of the Americans, we adopted a policy of supplying those countries with food to keep them alive and giving resources to build them up.
I saw Germany and Japan just after the war. I shall never forget them. I shall never forget India, too, particularly Calcutta, just after the war. It is true that we did not pull out of India as a moral gesture. It was a factor, but not the determining factor. However, having done that, we used our best administrators on the aid we gave. We even introduced bread rationing in Britain so that more food could go, not to Calcutta particularly, but to India in general.
Successive Governments in the West, but particularly in this country, have been moved by moral considerations. That is a fact that we must remember when considering a comprehensive motion such as that which is now before us.
Like so many of my generation, ever since my first election to the House I have referred at election times to the need for my constituents to provide some of their money to help the developing countries. I know that my hon. Friend will give credit to the Labour Party for the part it has played in this. He would have been very young at the time, but I am sure he will remember the great debates which took place on the subject of development aid at Labour Party conferences in the late 1940s. Such debates were a new feature in those days.
I went as a delegate to the United Nations in 1949 where the British Government—it was a Labour Government then—played a considerable part in supporting President Truman in his Point Four plans for development aid to the poorer countries.
Later support has not been from only one party. It has been given by both major parties. I served in Africa, both East and West, as a British High Commissioner under a Conservative Government. A considerable part of the policy in the field of the British Government was the provision of aid. This was done. The biggest part of my job in East Africa was building up a system of aid and technical assistance. Over the years this moral side has been clearly shown.
It is most important to consider an institution such as the British Council which could be used merely as an instrument of national policy. Some argue that it should be so used but it has not. What has been the result? The British Council has worked in developing countries. It keeps in touch with the British missions there, but it goes along on its own. We do not withdraw the aid in difficult times, even if we disapprove of the country's Government.
For example, when Ghana broke off diplomatic relations with us it asked for our presence in the form of the British Council to remain. It was part of its educational system. This we did, to the amazement of our enemies and to the horror of some of our friends, who thought that the best way of answering an argument was to slam the door. We kept ourselves there, to our benefit and, in the long run, to the benefit of that country. Independence is a fact of which we have taken account.
When the East African countries came to decide whether it was in their economic interests to establish certain links with the European Economic Community, the British Government said "You work it out for yourselves. We think that it is in your interests, but you can call in some neutral economists—some Swedes, some Swiss or some Austrians—and we will pay for them. You take their advice." We did this. This surprised some other ex-colonial Powers which could not understand that we were treating these countries as truly independent countries


and giving them the opportunity of independent advice.
I greatly regret that in this country we spend on aid only one-seventh of what we spend on tobacco. I want more spent on aid. However, let us look at it the other way round. It may be that we spend on aid only one-seventh of what we spend on tobacco, but under successive Governments each family of two adults and two children spends 50p per week on aid. This is still not as much as we want, but it is something.
Over the past year our Select Committee dealing with overseas development has studied the question of rural development in poor countries. It is completing its studies. We found ourselves very soon re-enforced in our belief that what we should do was not to aim in any way to promote the interests of the West. It could be argued that that is what we should do, but we decided not to do it. All of us decided that we should work towards giving aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries.
Last July, at the World Bank in Washington, Mr. McNamara said that exactly that was also the policy of the World Bank. In the autumn the Government produced a White Paper. The White Paper also followed that policy. Its title is "The Changing Emphasis in British Aid Policies". Its sub-title is "More Help for the Poorest". I believe that that is morally right, and it is something to be put in the balance. We should not forget these achievements.
I referred to the Select Committee's visit to Washington last year. We spoke to the Chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee. We became well aware of one of the problems there. I do not know whether it is generally seen as a moral problem. The problem was whether the United States should supply grain to Russia. Many people were arguing that it was wrong for the United States to supply enormous quantities of grain to Russia. Some trade union leaders and many influential organisations argued that the United States should not feed Russia and thus save her from any threat of economic collapse. They argued that a Government which preferred guns to butter should not have such help and that the only way of getting a collapse

of the Soviet system inside without any external aggression was to deny food.
Both the United States Administration and the United States Congress rejected that point of view. However hostile they may be—and they certainly are—to the Russian Government, they are not hostile to the Russian people and they have shown a moral sense in rejecting those arguments for withholding grain as a very severe political weapon.
I am not debating whether this is a good thing. I am saying that it should be thrown into the other side of the balance, as our system of aid is. In the West we are more moral than my hon. Friend would have us believe.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Walters: I hope that the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the lines of his interesting speech.
I want first to congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on having tabled the motion. Not enough time is devoted in the House to foreign policy, and we should not have had this opportunity to debate the matter had it not been for the hon. Gentleman.
Many areas of the world are causing anxiety and disquiet. Angola is one of them. It was timely that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech made outside the House which caused a great deal of comment both in this country and abroad, emphasised the concern and anxiety that is felt, not just in so-called Right-wing circles but in many moderate circles, at aspects of Soviet Foreign policy and especially at the increasing imbalance between the armed might of the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and the defence capability of the West, and especially Western Europe, on the other.
The hon. Member for Harlow chose for the theme of his motion "Foreign Policy and Morality". As there is nothing more moral in foreign policy than trying to prevent war and achieve peaceful settlements of international disputes, it is certainly worth examining, even if only briefly, the present situation in the Middle East, where the lack of progress towards peace and the consequent danger of renewed war seems to be causing a good


deal less worry than the reality of the situation demands.
Before doing that, however, may I refer to the comment made by the hon. Gentleman on the war in Oman. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that to describe the war in Oman waged by Sultan Qaboos as a war between reaction and a liberation movement, which is how the hon. Member for Harlow described it, is a travesty of the truth and of the facts. We should welcome the fact that the war is coming to an end and that the Sultan appreciates the fact that the advancement of his country—economic, medical and educational—must go hand in hand with military success.
The first and most significant point to note about the situation in the Middle East is that Dr. Kissinger's policy of step-by-step progress has come to a complete halt. A deafening silence has replaced the noise of seemingly endless and well-attended Press conferences, and complete immobility has replaced the non-stop propulsion of the American Secretary of State. Yet the whole essence of step-by-step diplomacy was that it was intended as a policy of constant movement. The momentum should never flag, and one step, however small, was to be followed as quickly as possible by another. The repeated steps were intended to narrow the gulf which separated the two sides from a mutually acceptable peace, so that the ultimate leap which was to be left for a peace conference in Geneva or elsewhere would not appear impossible. The steps would have closed the gap to a point where the final obstacles would look surmountable and could be surmounted.
There was never much wrong with "step-by-step" so long as practice followed theory and the steps took place in fairly quick succession and were big enough. But I always feared that Israel would not allow this to happen without the application of truly massive and relentless American pressure. Regrettably, those doubts have proved justified by events, and hence the increasing danger of the situation. Two fairly small but not insignificant steps in Sinai, and one minuscule step on the Golan front with Syria, but nothing whatsoever in the area which is perhaps the most important of

all, the West Bank of the River Jordan—that is not a great deal to show after nearly two and a half years of step-by-step diplomacy and innumerable visits of Dr. Kissinger.
Those visits have now stopped, and there appears to be a tacit acceptance that no further step, or, indeed, action of any kind, can take place until after the American presidential election, an election which could see the defeat of President Ford and the disappearance of Dr. Kissinger from the political arena. It is no wonder that discouraged observers in the Arab world and elsewhere note that Mr. Rabin's recent visit to the United States seemed almost entirely devoted to the question of purchasing yet more arms and even more sophisticated weapons such as the Pershing missile, instead of concentrating on the next step towards peace, which means a further withdrawal from the occupied territories as laid down in Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 of the United Nations.
It is no wonder that observers note with gloom Israel's continued policy of colonising territory which does not belong to her, and point to the enormous amount of money and pressure which had to be showered upon her before she could be persuaded to withdraw even a few kilometres. No wonder that they begin to talk of the inevitability of another war, and, should there be another war, apart from the countries directly involved no one will suffer more than Western Europe. Economically the effects would be disastrous, and yet, despite the obvious danger, Europe looks on in a state of apparently listless impotence.
In November, during our foreign affairs debate, I suggested a number of initiatives which. I believe, could usefully be taken by the European Nine. Perhaps in conclusion today I could add one more to that list, and I shall be grateful if the Minister of State will comment on it. There is growing world-wide support for the general idea of a Palestinian State on Palestinian soil—and that is a question of international morality if ever there was one. The recent discussions in the Security Council confirm that support.
Although the United States is moving towards an inevitable acceptance of the PLO as the best available spokesman for the Palestinians, it is moving very slowly.


In order to accelerate matters, would it not be possible for the Europeans to ask the United States whether it is prepared to entertain the right of Palestinians to have a homeland of their own on Palestinian soil as part of a peace settlement? Once agreement could be reached on the question of principle that a Palestinian State should be set up, the argument about who should negotiate for the Palestinians would recede in importance. Moreover, would it not be possible for the European Nine to consider ventilating in New York the possibility of the United Nations Secretary-General being requested to ascertain the wishes of the Palestinian people regarding the establishment of a State as part of a general settlement as envisaged in Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338?
There is a precedent for this kind of policy in the mission which the Secretary-General sent to North Borneo and Sarawak in 1963 to ascertain whether the peoples of those countries were in favour of joining the Federation of Malaysia. That is a precedent which could be usefully followed now. The suggestion would have to be cleared, no doubt, with the PLO, and possibly with the Arab host Governments, but there is no reason why the PLO should object, since it has already declared that it would be prepared to establish a Palestinian State on any territory which is liberated.
If war is to be averted, the United States must ultimately shoulder the main responsibility. Anybody who has followed the situation is aware of that. The United States must shoulder the main responsibility of the negotiations, and the Soviet Union cannot be excluded. But Western Europe must be there as well. In the meantime, there are many useful initiatives which could be taken by us. I feel that events will not wait, but the West at present shows little or no sign of appreciating that fact.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) for introducing his motion on foreign affairs and morality, which gives us an opportunity to get away from the more mundane and detailed matters to which the House normally devotes itself.
I have noticed during the debate that almost everything is fair game for discussion. I remember reading that a British statesman, Palmerston, said that Britain had no eternal enemies and no eternal friends, only eternal interests. Even today, 100 years later, an element of that must exist in our foreign policy, because we are an international trading nation dependent upon links around the world. However, perhaps that view is too crude.
Next come the two super-Powers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, their policy is survival through mutual terror. They have massive amounts of armaments and show a considerable degree of immorality in the way they exercise their power.
The medium nations come next and it is they upon which I should like to concentrate. I believe that the French are just a little too chauvinistic and a little too pushing in the pursuance of their ambitions. In many ways such a policy can rebound upon a nation.
Next come nations like the United Kingdom, Canada and Zambia, which are, in the best sense of the word, potential examples of how morality can show itself in international relations. Of those three nations the United Kingdom is the most important because in terms of history, international connections and even of power we are the most significant. In my view, it is extremely important that we should debate this matter and in particular look at the way Britain conducts herself.
I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), who drew attention to the Middle East crisis and the significance and implications of a solution in that area. He also referred to United Nations Resolution No. 242, which was, as we all know, a British resolution. It tried to contain the essence of morality in international relations by giving Israel the right to exist behind secure and recognised frontiers. That resolution was introduced by Lord Caradon in another place. It is important to remember that we also said that there were rights for the Palestinians. Surely it is in the finest traditions of this House that the hon. Member for Westbury should speak up for the Palestinians today. We have espoused many causes in our history and


we must not forget the silent majority in what was the old Palestine who at present cannot speak. It was right for the resolution to emphasise the rights of the Palestinians.
Perhaps of more immediate urgency is the suggestion that the BBC external services should be cut. Apparently there have to be across-the-board sacrifices. I know that certain hon. Members criticise the BBC, and, although I do not intend to mention many countries, Portugal comes to mind. The BBC is not perfect. However, I must admit that when I want to know the news I wait until midnight and listen to the BBC external services. I know that I shall not hear the news from the BBC television. I believe that in the advance of morality it would be not immoral, but it would certainly be unwise, to cut the BBC external services.
If we cut the services we would be cutting the voice of the United Kingdom, which puts the bad as well as the good news in its broadcasts. We would be undermining ourselves if we cut that service. I know that a number of hon. Members are concerned about this matter. We must accept that there will be certain sacrifices, but if we cut services not only will services disappear but talents will be wasted. Therefore, let us show morality about the future of the BBC external services.
The right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) mentioned the United Nations agencies. I believe that the hon. Member for Harlow, who moved the motion, neglected this side of international morality. Enormous progress has been made in the care of and the concern for the poor, the deprived and the sick. All credit should be given to the United States of America and people like Dr. Borlaug, who developed dwarf wheat and who is responsible for many hundreds of millions of people around the world having more food than they would have had otherwise.
We need not apologise for our rôle area of international agencies. Basically the world is a barbaric place. We have had the benefit of 2 million years of development as human beings as opposed to apes, although I agree that very often the two are indistinguishable. It is 10,000 years since Jericho became

a city. Perhaps we expect too much perfection. It is important that nations such as ours and communities like this House of Commons should not lose hope or speak in a mood of anger, temper or despair. We have a responsibility to emphasise that there are hopes in the world and to give examples where things have gone wrong and, of course, where things have not lived up to expectations.
The debate has given us an opportunity to get away from detailed matters. Perhaps in 100 years' time, when we have another debate on foreign policy and morality—it will be that long before the Leader of the House lets us have another debate—Members will still be around and will be a little better at the subject.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on raising so subtle and philosophical a subject as the relationship between foreign policy and morality. As many hon. Members have already said, foreign policy is a subject which is shamefully neglected by the House. From what the hon. Gentleman said it appeared that there was a shade more foreign policy than morality in his speech. However, he concluded by claiming that he wished for a Socialist foreign policy. He will not be surprised when I say that I should not be in favour of a Socialist foreign policy. There is, however, some room for congratulation on the fact that Her Majesty's Government are not in favour of a Socialist foreign policy, either.
The relationship between morality and international affairs remains vague and undefined. There are two rival schools of thought. There are those who believe that decisions in foreign policy are either wise or foolish and there are others who believe that decisions in foreign policy are either good or evil. I am inclined towards the first school of thought—namely, the choice between wisdom and foolishness. I believe that while there is room for "morality" within foreign policy, morality as we discuss it today should impinge upon foreign affairs as little as possible.
Let us examine how we define right and wrong in relationships between sovereign States. The moralists assert


that States should be judged on the principles of individual morality. They go on to assert that there is or should be an identity between the morality of individuals and the morality of States. I am not convinced of this. There is a philosophical distinction between the moral behaviour of individuals and the behaviour of social groups. For instance, the obligation of the individual surely is to obey the law of love and sacrifice, but nations cannot be sacrificial. Governments are not individuals—they are trustees for other individuals.
Hugh Cecil once wrote:
Unselfishness is inappropriate to the action of a State. No one has the right to be unselfish with the interests of other people.
Alexander Hamilton—I must include in my quotations one American, as the United States has featured so largely in the debate—said:
The rôle of morality is not precisely the same between nations as between individuals.
Winston Churchill wrote:
The Sermon on the Mount is the last word in Christian ethics. Still, it is not on those terms that Ministers assume their responsibilities for guiding States.
Saints can be pure, but statesmen must be responsible.
We should resist the facile intrusion of moral judgments into foreign affairs, because foreign policy, unfortunately, is not a branch of ethics and should not become so. We must serve the national interest. Clearly, there is room for debate on what the national interest is at any given moment, but we start by trying to serve the national interest.
There is no international moral consensus. There may be agreement between civilised peoples that we all hate atrocity or torture, but there is no international moral consensus. At present, national, ideological, ethical and religious divisions remain, throughout the world, as insoluble as ever. We in Britain should combine a skilful regard for our own national interest with an unremitting respect for the interests of others This would seem more likely than the invocation of moral absolutes to bring about greater restraint, justice and peace among the nations of the world.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: We all congratulate my hon. Friend the

Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on initiating this debate, on the interesting points he made, and on encouraging others who have made some excellent speeches. The debate has been well worth while. In particular, the enlightening and erudite speech by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was not only worth hearing but will be worth reading in the months ahead.
But I find myself in sharp disagreement with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I did not expect to find myself in disagreement, but I think that he is entirely wrong in saying that we can distinguish between individuals and nations in approaching morality. Nations are bound and should be bound by a moral code. Enshrined within the United Nations itself are certain objectives to which most, if not all, countries have contributed, and I believe that it is increasingly important for countries such as our own to be able to argue within the United Nations for those moral objectives to be adhered to.
I have in mind, for instance, the Genocide Convention of the United Nations. That Convention has been too often ignored. It was ignored, for example, in the case of Bangladesh, when it was East Pakistan, and when Pakistan attempted to retain control of that part of the country by imposing a brutal military régime on the population and engaging in the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It was genecide of the Bengali people—genocide writ large. There was and should have been action by the United Nations early on to prevent those atrocities going on without restriction.
Therefore, I clash with the hon. Member for Aldershot in his rather cynical approach to this aspect of international relations. I believe that we, as a nation, having discarded our empire more or less peaceably, now have an opportunity to take an objective view of foreign affairs and of morality in international relations, so that we can draw attention to the evil aspects of actions by other States, not only in relation to other countries with which they are in conflict but also in relation to their own populations, whom they sometimes engage in destroying simply in the interests of a group which


happens to have power or the army behind it.
In this respect, I have in mind—I refer to it very sadly—Uganda, where I lived for many years and where I worked for the independence of that State from United Kingdom colonialism. I must admit that I now bitterly regret what has happened since independence, because the conditions of the ordinary people in Uganda were much better under British colonialism than they are today.
The régime of Amin is a brutal régime, which has involved the systematic murder of tens of thousands of people. The hard-found wealth of that country, from the coffee and cotton grown by the ordinary peasants, is being squandered on the purchase of arms and military supplies rather than used for the building-up of the country.
I believe that Daniel Moynihan was right in saying, in the United Nations and elsewhere, what he felt about conditions in Uganda. I do not think that it does this country any credit for our ambassador at the United Nations, Mr. Ivor Richard, to engage in the rather cynical, devious business of trying to win support by a hushing up of what he knows and what we all know has been going on.
I think that the rôole of this country, through Mr. Richard and our other representatives, is to come out plainly and simply to say what we really think about Amin and any other dictator who exists. For us to be trying to play a game of manipulating such countries' support for other measures that we may be engaged in is cynical and degrading.
I would like to know at some stage—I do not know whether we shall get to know today—to what extent Mr. Richard has been under instructions from the Foreign Secretary in this respect. On occasions, Mr. Moynihan, in excusing his friend, Mr. Richard, has said that he understood how, unlike himself, Mr. Richard was acting under instructions. Mr. Moynihan said what he liked, and apparently upset Dr. Kissinger from time to time. Apparently, however, Mr. Richard is under strict instructions from the British Foreign Secretary.
If that is so, it is a very sad state of affairs because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough

(Mr. Jackson) I believe that this country should be one of the small group of countries expressing themselves about foreign affairs with a degree of morality to inspire them. I do not think that we have yet reached that position. I agree with my hon. Friend about Zambia and Canada, but I think that he should have included Sweden, as well. I do not think we can yet include ourselves in that select group of countries.
Too often we have indications, such as from the United Nations, that the Foreign Secretary and other spokesmen who decide the way we run our international affairs are pursuing other interests. We have had that, for instance, with regard to Iceland. How can we claim to have morality in foreign affairs when we are trying to get our point of view across to the Icelanders without engaging in fair negotiations with them? I know that it is not popular to condemn the Foreign Secretary and others while they are engaged in these negotiations, but I think it is sensible to do so, because only if we draw attention to some of this humbug do we get some sense emerging from the miasma that surrounds these negotiations.
I heard the Foreign Secretary say, three months ago, that we could have an immediate agreement with the Icelandic authorities on a catch of 65,000 tons per year. We could have had that agreement three months ago, but as a result of the Government's attempting to get just a little bit more—unlike the Germans, who immediately and sensibly settled on a catch of about the same size; of course, a catch of another sort of fish, which they now advise us to eat, rather than sticking to cod—they behaved stupidly and recklessly in the Icelandic dispute. I am suggesting that we should have more honesty and frankness rather than the humbug that we have been getting from the Foreign Secretary and, particularly, from the Prime Minister, last weekend at Chequers.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but if this is a debate about human rights he must surely accept that there are certain human rights to enable British fishermen to fish in international waters. There are certain rights,


also, involved in respecting the ruling of the International Court of Justice. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken these matters into consideration.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, but when we say what we are going to do we should behave honestly and sensibly and not try to wrap up our policies in the sort of humbug that we have had in these last few months. I believe that our standing in other fields of foreign policy would be helped if it did not appear that we were wielding the big stick at the Icelanders.
I can approach this debate with a unique advantage, because I believe that I am the only Member of the House to be accused of being a Czech spy and a CIA agent at one and the same time. I have seen in the Daily Mirror today yet another repetition of the allegation—it has been made several times—that I am a Czech spy. On page 2, I read:
Labour MP John Stonehouse has been named in a US Government inquiry into spying. A Czech spy who defected to the West claims that the former Labour Minister had been associating with Communist agents.
All this stale information comes from a certain Joseph Frolik. I had not intended referring to it, but as the matter appears in the Daily Mirror today, and as, no doubt, other newspapers have secured this report from the United States Senate, I should like to take the opportunity of denying absolutely the allegation that has been made by Mr. Frolik.
It is true that when I was a Minister and, indeed, before, I associated with Communist agents. I did not know at the time that they were spies. Also, I am convinced that most Ministers of both Administrations have in past years associated with agents. There is no escaping from it, if one is going to engage in any sort of discussion with the Czechs or with anyone else. Indeed, the man I had known from the Czech Embassy turned up when I was a Minister negotiating with the Czech Minister responsible for the Czech aircraft industry and I was trying to sell him the VC10. Associated with that sale was a negotiation to provide the Czech airline with landing rights at Heathrow, so that the Czechs could fly their VC1O through the United Kingdom into the United States, and the very man who at that time, apparently,

was a Communist spy turned up as the interpreter. He has since been named as one of the Czechs' leading agents in this country at that time.
I therefore suggest that it is impossible for anyone, if he is a Minister responsible for negotiating with the Czechs or with anyone else, to escape from having some association with Communist agents. When I was in Czechoslovakia I apparently met some others who were involved in this business.
As for being an agent of the CIA, I am glad to tell the House that the hon. Member who made this allegation publicly last year has been good enough to see me in the corridor and to deny his claim. I doubt very much whether the popular Press will give that denial as much prominence as they gave to the original allegation when it appeared a year ago.
I have put on the Order Paper a motion attacking the lack of freedom for Dr. Sakharov to go from Russia to Oslo to collect his Nobel Peace Prize. I was glad to receive considerable support from all sides of the House in that case. In fact, hon. Members of every political party represented in the House were good enough to sign it. I draw attention to it today because it demonstrates the sort of problem that we are up against, in foreign affairs, when Governments say one thing and do another.
We see examples of that sort of thing at the moment. In the case of the Helsinki Agreement we have a declaration that there should be freedom of movement for individuals and freedom of ideas. Our own Prime Minister went to Helsinki and solemnly signed this declaration, and so did most other world leaders, but very little has resulted from this, except, according to the Foreign Secretary the other day, more freedom for Press men in Moscow. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think it is good enough for the Government to engage in the solemn business of signing a declaration and then doing nothing about it, ignoring the complete refutation of the whole spirit and purpose of the declaration by the Soviet Union in not allowing Dr. Sakharov to go to Oslo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow drew attention to the report of the Senator Frank Church Committee on the assassination plots involving foreign


leaders. I have the Report in my hand and I should like to quote from it. I do not want to go over the ground that the senator dealt with—the question of assassinations, and so on. That is well documented in the Report, and it certainly makes very good reading. I should, however, like to draw attention to a paragraph on page 274 which says that
Many of the plans that were discussed and often approved contemplated violent action against Cuba. The operation which resulted in the Bay of Pigs was a major paramilitary onslaught that had the approval of the highest government officials, including the two Presidents.
The Report goes on to discuss a little more about the "Mongoose" plan, which
involved propaganda and sabotage operations aimed towards spurring a revolt of the Cuban people against Castro. Measures which were considered by the top policymakers included incapacitating sugar workers during harvest season by the use of chemicals; blowing up bridges and production plants; sabotaging merchandise in third countries—even those allied with the United States—prior to its delivery to Cuba…".
It is that item which I draw seriously to the attention of the House, I repeat:
sabotaging merchandise in third countries—even those allied with the United States…".
We have been an ally of the United States for many years, but we were supplying Cuba with buses against the interests of the United States. On 14th February 1975 an article appeared in the Daily Mail which read:
Did the CIA organise a collision on the Thames to stop British Leyland sending 400 buses to Castro's Cuba? The suggestion has been scorned by the CIA… Nevertheless, the claim has been made—and by a much respected journalist, famous for his record of exposing spy scandals. Washington columnist Jack Anderson will this morning tell the story of the 'Magdeburg', an East German freighter, and a foggy day on the Thames in October 1964.
I shall not burden the House with the whole report, but the ship was sunk and the cargo was not delivered to Cuba at that stage. That concerns an allegation made by a respected journalist in the United States.
It is that sort of allegation that leads me to suggest we should establish a Select Committee. We should investigate the question whether the CIA was involved in sabotaging the "Magdeburg", or in stopping the export of civilian goods to Cuba. We should investigate

other areas involving activities of our own secret service and foreign affairs officials.
It has been well documented that the United States has been involved in direct subsidies to foreign political parties. Tens of millions of dollars have been mentioned in respect to the Italian political parties. It is also well known that the Soviet Union and East European countries subsidise Communist parties by exporting goods at less than the economic price so that trading organisations can make a profit. These profits are used to subsidise the activities of Communist parties. For example, the Communist Party in Portugal has been assisted. The Italian Communist Party has also gained considerable benefit from these trading operations. I do not think it would be the job of a Select Committee to investigate any of those allegations, as they have been well investigated already by the Pryke Committee of Congress and the Church Committee of the Senate.
I believe that a Select Committee should investigate the secret donations that have been made by British Governments to foreign political parties to enable them to win certain elections, to the advantage of the United Kingdom. As a former Minister, I know of examples, which I should like to give to a Select Committee. If the Americans have thought it right to establish the Church Committee and the Pryke Committee to carry out full investigations into the secret operations of the CIA—I am not suggesting that our activities have been so serious—I believe that we should investigate our operations in other countries. It is important that this House, as with the elected representatives in the United States, through their respective committees, should have an opportunity to investigate these matters.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it much more important that the House should consider the contributions that have been made by foreign countries to various organisations in Britain—contributions designed to bring down this Government or any other duly-elected Government?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am glad to have support for my proposal. I think that the terms of reference of a Select Committee


could well be widened to include an investigation into those matters. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for initiating this debate.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) have taken the view that Britain could give a lead in being moral in its foreign policy. I agree, but I beg the House to remember that we cannot take a lead in being powerful. Whatever lead we may give depends on us being willing to operate within one of the two great alliances into which the world is divided. There is the free democratic world that shelters under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, or the world of the Warsaw Pact and Iron Curtain countries.
Whatever criticisms have been made of the operations of the CIA or other intelligence services, there are two great differences between the CIA and the KGB. First, the CIA does not operate at home, and whatever it may do overseas, it is subject to open criticism and to investigation. That is more than can be said of the KGB. Second, the CIA does not operate at home, but the KGB has a long history of tyranny and oppression at home. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) was wise enough to mention tyranny within the Soviet Union. I had already had the forethought to take his advice to consult the Library and to look out a number of appalling incidents of oppression which have been well and courageously documented by many people, including Bernard Levin, with a great deal of authority and independent evidence of the appalling denial of human rights. That is the Soviet regime, which has set the tone throughout its own empire.
I suggest that in discussing morality in foreign policy the House should recollect that the Soviet Union is an empire which has been established by force of Russian arms. With the possible exception of Cuba there is virtually no record of a Communist country—certainly no Communist country in Europe—that has not had to be supported by force of Soviet arms to establish itself against the wishes of the

people, and to remain established, as we have seen in Hungary and, subsequently, Czechoslovakia. We have seen domestic oppression carried on in the satellite countries of Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, and elsewhere. No wonder Solzhenitzyn said:
To treat with friendship such a system"—
he was referring to the USSR—
and those who rule it not only betrays those who suffer under it, but inevitably makes the system's ultimate victory more likely.
Therefore, I do not reach the same conclusion as that of the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), who thought that it was a good idea for the United States to supply the Soviet Union with grain. Nor do I think we should have welcomed to these shores an ex-KGB chief, now masquerading as a trade union leader. However, I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Member for Kettering recognise in their different ways the dilemma faced by the hon. Member for Harlow when he opened the debate. The fact is that there is no ideological detente because the Soviet Union is determined to use its Marxist ideology to further imperialist expansion. Therefore, we face a considerable moral problem. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kettering that it is helpful to continue to give aid, whether or not we agree with the régime in power, but I would not go so far as to extend that principle to the Soviet Union itself.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion was on a different tack when he referred to the tyranny posed by the Soviet Empire rather than that of some of the Third World. In a cold war we must work on the premise that peace, which must be the greatest morality of all, can only be damaged by a weakening of our defences. Such damage could lead only to the erosion of our liberties, and the British people would find the resulting situation intolerable.
Those hon. Members who have said that in these matters we should try to keep a clear head and a single standpoint should practise what they preach. We have heard far too much about the peccadilloes of our foreign policy from those who support the Soviet Union, as compared to criticism of its interference, by


force of arms, in the internal affairs of other countries and its efforts to penetrate other people's territories by all possible means. We cannot avoid the fact that the Soviet Union, regardless of any form of detente, is seeking to carry on the ideological battle.
I agree, too, with the right hon. Member for Walsall, North that we should not flinch in our support of people such as Mr. Daniel Moyniham whenever they have the courage to point to tyrannies in the Third World.

Mr. Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he feels about the situations in Indonesia and Chile? Does he condemn oppression of human beings in those countries, or does he regard what happened in Chile as a mere peccadillo?

Mr. Macmillan: I condemn the oppression of human beings wherever it may occur. However, it is hypocrisy for the United Nations to pass a motion condemning a so-called racist regime in Israel and at the same time to ignore what is happening in Bulgaria, Mongolia, Cuba, Uganda, the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, East Germany, Albania, Sri Lanka, China, Libya, Indonesia, Yemen, Syria, Poland and a score of other countries that voted for that motion. That is "double talk" with a vengeance.
I must admit that in a situation where there is no ideological detente and a continuance of the cold war I, too, have a double standard. I wish to maintain the pursuit of democracy, liberty, freedom, and human rights throughout the world. But our primary job—I am sure that this is the view of all of us, particularly of Her Majesty's Government—is to seek to protect the rights and interests of the British people. We seek that protection in a world in which Marxism is being used as a medieval Christianity was once used in the shameful episode of the Fourth Crusade, namely, as an excuse for invasion and expansion of national or sectional interests.
The agreement made at Helsinki requires a great deal more action by Warsaw Pact countries to turn it into true detente than we have yet seen. We have seen from the Soviet bloc interference with the freedom of movement and every attempt to impede Radio Free Europe. We have seen a continuous

Russian build-up, with the establishment of great bases in Somalia and the likelihood that the Angolan war will lead to the establishment of further Russian bases, this time on the Atlantic. There has been an enormous increase in the Russian submarine fleet. If the hon. Member for Harlow wishes to see disarmament as a reality, let him seek it where arms are building up fastest and where those arms, because of their nature, are most likely to be used for aggression.
It is enlightening, though frightening, to examine the various studies carried out in respect of force structures in Europe. The evidence is that Russian forces are more suited to attack than to defend and to aggression rather than to self-defence.
Let us, as a free people, do all we can to advance the cause of freedom, morality and humanity in the world. But let us at least be honest enough to recognise that we can achieve these aims only if we ourselves remain free. Furthermore, let us be realistic enough to recognise that this means choosing one side or the other. We choose the Western alliance—which involves an alliance with a country which, whatever its faults, does not send to lunatic asylums or prisons those who seek to criticiise its policies.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: A period of 16 years has elapsed since I made my maiden speech in this House. I have been silent for a period of two years while acting as a Government Whip, and therefore I can now be said to be making half a maiden speech, or to be losing half of my virginity.
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on the way in which he opened the debate. In my experience over the past 16 years, foreign affairs debates in this House have usually been two-day, ragged, hotch-potch affairs. At least today's three-hour debate will concentrate our minds.
The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and I in earlier years were very much concerned with the National Health Service. Indeed, most of my contributions in this House have dealt with health matters. However, I have found today's debate to be a fascinating exercise, involving a common symptom to be seen in psychiatry, and questions


of morality as viewed by hon. Members on both sides of the House have led to transference of responsibility or guilt-feelings to somebody else, in this case another country. Therefore, I wish to pay most regard to the problem set out in the motion—our concern with our own morality. I hope that we shall concentrate on this. I shall try to persuade hon. Members of the need to pay attention to our own responsibilities.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), stressed British interests in the form of a running motif through his speech, as did the right hon. Member for Farnham. This emphasises my contention that responsibility for political decisions on a moral judgment must rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues.
For a short period I was attached to the Foreign Office as PPS. My experience was that on every single foreign problem that emerged the huge amount of documentation provided by the civil servants was concerned only with British "interests". Never was there a political or moral concept involved in the briefs provided. That was not the job of the Civil Service. It was the job of the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in charge of the Department. I once challenged the then Permanent Under-Secretary, now Lord Gore-Booth, on precisely this point. He confirmed that it was not the job of the Foreign Office, in providing information to the Secretary of State, ever to be concerned with the political or moral content of a question. It is the present Secretary of State's job to make his decisions in that respect in the light of his ethical philosophy and his lifetime of experience in the Socialist movements.
My hon. Friend's motion is particularly apt. In the present period there are obviously a number of political and moral decisions to be made, and almost every day these are placed squarely on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The debate has been partly concerned with defence, armaments and the supply of armaments. Over the years my party has moved a long way from concepts of George Bernard Shaw in his play

"Major Barbara", in which the great armaments manufacturer, Undershaft, appears. In the same context there was an excellent book by Lord Brockway, who used to be a Member of this House. The title of his book was "Death pays a Dividend". Strangely enough, although those works are dated, when we consider the actions taken in economic affairs by multinational companies it is surprising how close a parallel there is to the kinds of forces and pressures at work in foreign affairs and overseas matters, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to make his judgments.
There was a brief period when my Government were very bold and imaginative, between 1964 and 1966. We accepted the fact that since 1962 a good deal of the frigidity had moved out of the cold war. We were moving towards détente, not for any ideological reasons but because of very hard economic facts. When countries have an "overkill" capacity, so that they can wipe out the world 10 or 20 times over, it begins to become economic nonsense to seek to have further ability to wipe out the world 30 or 40 times.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a very imaginative way, appointed a Minister for disarmament. Unfortunately, he appointed the wrong Minister.

Mr. Cormack: He was a very good Minister.

Mr. Pavitt: The problem was that the man who ought to have filled that office, Philip Noel-Baker, had by that time reached the age at which he could no longer accept such a responsibility. Looking back over Philip Noel-Baker's record, one finds considerable material which could have been used to great effect by anyone holding the office of Minister for disarmament.
The Department of the Minister for disarmament consisted of eight civil servants in a little house in Queen Anne's Gate. Unfortunately, this proved ineffectual as a counter-balancing influence against the pressures for equipping wars. As the right hon. Member for Farnham has quite rightly said, defence is a matter of acute concern, and on one side of Whitehall there are three enormous buildings. They house admirals, brigadiers,


Royal Air Force officers and a tremendous number of civil servants. Their task is constantly to give the Secretary of State for Defence information and advice to ensure that our defences are not eroded. Through the Secretary of State for Defence, enormous pressure is also put on the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. By way of contrast, in negotiations to secure peace and disarmament, such as the strategic arms limitation talks, there was only this miniature office with eight civil servants to advise the Minister for disarmament. Since that time the whole Department has disappeared. Surely in these days, when there are various contending policies before the Government, there should be experts available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with as much power and strength as the armaments merchants, to enable him to make moral judgments on this kind of issue as well as others.

Mr. Goodhew: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the period when Lord Chalfont was Minister for disarmament and the present Chancellor of the Exechequer was Secretary of State for Defence, is he not aware that the then Secretary of State for Defence was disarming this country unilaterally at such a rate that we did not need a Minister for Disarmament? We had one already in the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Pavitt: This is one of the great myths of the Conservatives, and it was perpetuated earlier this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. If we look at the Defence Estimates for any year from 1930 onwards, we can see that there were colossal increases every year in the amount spent on armaments. Unfortunately, particularly in the few years up to 1939, the capitalist industry in this country could not deliver the goods although the cost to the taxpayer escalated at a colossal rate. The kind of argument now put before the House by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) is equally completely erroneous.
Concerning the possibility of detente, which has been mentioned, I believe quite deeply and profoundly that a major confrontation between the two big Powers is no longer on the cards. This was agreed in 1962 after the Cuba confrontation, and today large wars are out, except

by accident. The great tragedy is that, at the same time as the great Powers are agreed that big wars are out, little wars are in. One wonders how my right hon. Friend the Secrtary of State will be able to exercise moral judgment in these matters and take international initiatives so that we may one day get to the stage when little wars are also out. The danger is that the little wars can easily escalate at any time to the point where the accidental large war is possible—the kind of war which we cannot afford and which humanity will not survive.
I should like the House to consider whether we could have some kind of cessation of ideological warfare. This is necessary if there is to be any effective move towards positive detente. In this respect I commend to the House the proposals made by the late Prime Minister Shastri of India just before he died He appealed for a 12 months' armistice in the war of words He urged nations to stop name-calling and to try for 12 months to forget their propaganda about basic ideological, economic and social differences, especially between the two big Powers.
We ought at least to try to achieve an agreement so that for a limited period the propaganda which keeps the cold war very much in being could be stopped. That would give each side the opportunity to make some progress with detente instead of finding reasons and excuses to make detente even more difficult to achieve.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I thought it was on this very point, as part of the Helsinki arrangement, that Brezhnev made it quite clear that he was not willing to do this, because in his view the ideological conflict must be carried forward

Mr. Pavitt: I am not denying that, but the White Paper on the Helsinki Agreement—which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has read—makes it quite clear that there was an acceptance by the Soviet side that there were deep and fundamental differences in ideology. But this is not the point I am making. Even though ideological differences exist, the war of words could be stopped temporarily. There should be an armistice type of agreement for the cessation of the building up of propaganda by which each side


is accusing the other and indulging in name calling and creating a climate of opinion which makes it very difficult for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to exercise his moral responsibilities. I believe that we could be making a good deal more advance with the technical information that we have.
Of late, very little has been said about the American-Soviet committee which met in Geneva, which found that disarmament was a possibility in economic terms and which published an extremely interesting report in 1965. Very little is said about the agreement which that committee reached that there could be a constructive side of our efforts to redirect our productive capacities from war to peace.
We have to face the fact that in the years ahead it is inevitable that countries which have been in a period of slight development will move towards independence and towards social, economic and political change. In the main, that is the responsibility of the people of those countries. It is they who will have to make the decisions about it. But it is our responsibility to use our intelligence to try to forestall possible events on the international canvas at the United Nations and elsewhere and to see how it is possible to get those inevitable changes occurring in various parts of the world in such a way that they do not lead to armed conflict, which is the only way at the moment that an oppressed people can ace to get out of what has been domination for many years in almost feudal societies.
Morality means positive political planning. Too often in foreign affairs, what happens is that we attempt to solve problems temporarily by the sort of means that we have used in Kashmir, the Middle East, Cyprus or Northern Ireland. Temporary partition can hold the ring for a time, but matters cannot be left like that. The moral responsibility then rests in not ceasing from intensive efforts to solve the political conflict and permanently eliminate the basic problems. In the same way, we need to be able to give a lead in international affairs at the United Nations. I for one am prepared to give sovereignty to the United Nations in a meaningful way instead of attempting

to preserve our own interest, as we do so frequently.
Our interest is peace. Without it, life is not worth living because, in fact, we all die.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: We have been right to congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on his choice of subject. I go a little further. In drafting his motion, he made a desperate effort to be even-handed, even though his pen let slip phrases every now and again about a reactionary clique. That was second nature to him. What is more, although he put into his speech phrases about his disapproval of what happens in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, his real antagonism and prejudices came through quite clearly. He spoke in the long tradition of this country of reading lectures to other nations. I wonder whether this has done us much good. I share the elegant scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on this point. Has it done us much good to read all these lectures, or has it done much good to those whom we were supposed to be trying to help?
We know about Mr. Gladstone in the Midlothian campaign. It helped him to win the next election. There is no evidence that it helped the Bulgars. The same was true in the case of Chinese labour in South Africa, brilliantly recorded in "The Life of Joseph Chamberlain" by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). But in those days we had a massive Navy and tremendous influence in the world, and the Sultan of Turkey, for example, had to take notice of what we said. In our present situation we have to be very careful about falling again into the habit of lecturing other countries about what they are doing within their own frontiers.
There was a remarkable example of this in the letter which the hon. Member for Harlow and others of his hon. Friends wrote to The Guardian on 31st January making certain allegations about the activities of His Majesty the Shah vis-à-vis Iranian novelists and sociologists. At the end of the letter the hon. Gentleman said:
We think that it is time that the strongest possible representations were made by the British authorities against this barbarous régime.


In what kind of world does the hon. Gentleman live? What sanctions does he imagine can be imposed against the Shah? Is he not aware that for years the airlines to Teheran have been filled with the executives of British nationalised industries trying to raise money from the Shah of Iran? I can think of only one sanction in this case. It is that we utter the dreaded words "Unless you mend your ways, we shall not borrow from you again." The hon. Gentleman is living in a naïve world if he thinks that a letter to The Guardian and this kind of phraseology mean anything anywhere outside a very narrow circle in this country.
I turn to Oman and what the hon. Gentleman said about that, because it illustrates another point. I am sure the hon. Gentleman believes what he says. But it is wholly removed from the facts of the situation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) pointed out. The hon. Gentleman drew no distinction between the last Sultan of Oman and the present one. It so happens that I have met both gentlemen. They are both remarkable in their ways. The old Sultan did not believe in allowing progress of any kind into his country and was quite clear about it. But under the present Sultan, who has been ruling the country for some years, great progress has been made. Great progress has been made in raising the standard of his people. To equate the two régimes and to say that there is no Western interest or morality in helping the Sultan to defend himself is again based on complete ignorance of the facts. What is more, to equate the forces for the liberation of Oman with new forces of light dedicated to human rights again shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that in Oman there is any democracy or there are any trade union rights at present? Will he not agree that, if he looks at other examples throughout history, it may be that the words of people like the older Pitt, when they spoke out during the course of the American Revolution, had some effect? In the long run, were they not right?

Mr. Hurd: Of course, the democratic standards of Oman are not those to which the hon. Gentleman is accustomed in

Harlow, and it will be some time before they are. But they are making substantial progress, whereas the people whom he is blessing are supported from South Yemen, a territory which has gone not forward but backwards in a sensational way in recent years. The hon. Gentleman has his money on the wrong horse if he is interested in progress and human rights.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have correctly referred to the point about the double standard, which flows immediately from this question of Oman. We hold no brief for, say, the rulers of Chile or Brazil or for what happens in those countries. But we cannot accept criticisms from the very people who themselves jostled to welcome Mr. Shelepin to these shores. It is not possible to make a valid condemnation of the one régime while welcoming the representative of the other.
I notice the hon. Member for Harlow smiling. I do not accuse him personally. It is a fact, however, that within the recent memory of us all there was the visit, blessed by the leaders of the British trade union movement, of a man whose record in these matters of human rights was as bad as any which could be conceived among living rulers in the world. Until the hon. Gentleman and his friends are prepared to make an even judgment in these matters, they cannot expect their criticisms to be listened to with respect.
There is the further point which was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion. It is not just the nature of the activities of these different régimes that we criticise. It is the directions in which they seek to move the world. We must recognise that the activities of the Soviet Union and its friends have tended and have been intended to diminish the security of our own country and of our allies. It is foolish to leave that principle out of account.
We ought to make, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot suggested, a distinction between what individuals do and what public opinion does, and what individual Members of the House do and what we ask Governments to do. It is perfectly right and traditional in this country for public opinion to bring its views to bear on what happens in other


countries. It will have some effect, history suggests, at the fringe of the activities in those other countries. Individuals will be released earlier than would otherwise have been the case. There will be practices of a rather minor kind which will be abandoned. Regimes do not change the whole basis of their nature because of what is said about them abroad. They may modify some of their practices, and that is all to the good.
But the Government's job is a different one. It is to maintain correct—not necessarily warm—relations with countries and Governments which fulfil our criteria for recognition. Any other course is likely to produce the wrong effect, just as the attempt by Governments to coerce Franco immediately after the Second World War gave to that regime a new lease of life which it might not otherwise have had.
Quite apart from that, the duty of a British Government is to protect British interests. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has said, this is a criterion which they cannot neglect and which must influence their dealings with other Governments if we are to protect British interests—for example, British citizens. We must have the means to do this. It is not possible to expect the Government both to break off relations with Chile in disapproval of the practices there and to protect British subjects in Chile who get into trouble. We have to choose, and the Government have rightly chosen, the course of maintaining diplomatic relations with Chile so that they can intervene in cases such as that of Dr. Cassidy.
Surely, on both sides of the House we must try to achieve an honest and consistent approach on this question of morality in foreign policy. I served for 14 years as a very junior member of Her Majesty's Foreign Service and I had some opportunity to see, from below as it were, what made for weakness and what were the impediments to the successful conduct of British foreign policy. I say to the hon. Member for Harlow that, of all the weaknesses and impediments I could spot, the approach to the affairs of the world typified in his speech was probably the most damaging of all.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: Like many other hon. Members, I warmly welcome

the opportunity for once given to this House to raise its eyes from the immediate day-to-day affairs of the world and to look at this question of the long-term and more general problems of the formation of foreign policy. One of our difficulties is that we spend so much of our time looking at the short term that we have very little opportunity to look at general principles in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and others have done today.
I suggest that the long-term problems to which we should be directing our attention today are concerned with the type of international community which we believe can be achieved and which we seek to achieve. In particular, we should ask what are the principles of international conduct which we believe that such an international community demands. I am not so cynical, as are some hon. Members who have spoken today, particularly from the Conservative side of the House, as to believe that there can be no genuine principles or no advance in this respect. I believe that there has been an advance.
For example, cases of overt agggression and attempts to grab large sections of the territory of another State are much less common today than they were a century or two centuries ago. This is certainly true in Europe and to some extent it is true in other parts of the world too. One of the problems facing the international community today is that there remains a large number of ambiguous situations in which there are at present still no firmly recognised principles of international conduct.
I rather regret that so far this debate has been ideological. Conservative Members have tended to give the impression that all the errors of international behaviour have been committed by Communist States, whereas some of my hon. Friends have concentrated their attention on States elsewhere. One of the great problems is precisely that the international community today lacks objectivity in approaching this question. If we are ever to achieve a more stable international community, it can only be by the elaboration of principles which are widely recognised and in this way perhaps more widely observed.
I want to concentrate my attention on two principles of international behaviour


to which lip service has been paid for a long time but the observance of which, unfortunately, has been very much lacking. I shall try to suggest that such observance has become more weak in recent years than formerly. The first of these principles is that of self-determination. This can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson and the end of the First World War. But in fact it goes back even further than that, for it is the same as the so-called national principle of the nineteenth century which was respected in the creation of a number of new States during that century. In 1918 it was much more explicity observed in the principles of the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of new States then and subsequently.
In 1945 this principle was yet more explicitly recognised in the terms of the Charter of that year and in the whole process of decolonisation which followed. Finally, it was again explicitly recognised in the famous Resolution No. 1514 passed by the United Nations in 1960, which was intended to be the basis of all further acts of decolonisation. It can, perhaps, be suggested that to a considerable extent the creation of new States in the period after 1945 was based on this principle. The sad fact is that today, particularly in recent months, that principle appears to have been totally forgotten by, among others, many members of the United Nations.
There are three critical situations today in different parts of the world where one might have hoped and expected that the principle of self-determination would be observed. One is the situation in Timor, where Portuguese rule came to an end a few months ago, the second is the situation in Spanish Sahara, where Spain handed over sovereignty a month or two ago, and the third is the situation in Angola. The fact is that the future of all these territories is being decided not on the principle of self-determination, not on the basis of what the inhabitants of the territories want, but entirely on the basis of brute force. It is not even on the basis of the relative armed force of the inhabitants of those States, which has sometimes been the case in a number of other territories.
In all these cases the armed power that is dominant, the armed power that is

to determine the situation and the future of these territories, is the armed power of external states—Indonesia in the case of Timor, Morocco and Mauretania against that of Algeria in the case of Spanish Sahara, and the armed power of Cuba, the Soviet Union and South Africa in the case of Angola. This seems to be lamentable, deplorable and scandalous.
Those are three new territories coming into existence which one might have hoped would have had Governments established which reflected the wishes of their inhabitants. Instead they are to have Governments established which reflect the balance of armed force in the area, the armed force of an external Power. It is a sad fact that the United Nations, although it has made some weak protests in one or two of these cases, has on the whole done nothing to try to remedy the situation. I very much hope that our Government, in their efforts in all these cases, will seek to ensure that the principle of self-determination is more effectively observed. We should try to ensure that this principle is established and recognised in the international community.
The second principle was once fairly widely recognised, namely, the principle of the non-involvement of external Powers in the civil conflicts of other States. This principle is laid down in the textbooks on international law. In those textbooks it is applied not only to assistance to rebels in a civil war but even to assistance to the recognised and legal Government of a State. This principle was recognised for about two centuries. In recent years it has been increasingly breached, particularly in the case of help to Governments which today are widely recognised as being legal. This leads to endless controversy about which is the legal and recognised Government. But the principle is breached equally widely by assistance given to rebel forces in other territories.
The principal form of conflict in the modern world is not overt conflict by great Powers against each other but conflict in the territories of other States involving assistance to rival factions fighting for domination in those States. The classic case was perhaps the war in Vietnam, which basically was between


the forces of North Vietnam and the forces of the United States. The forces of South Vietnam had very little influence on the outome of the war.
The same phenomenon has been evident in many other territories since 1945, and it can be clearly seen in one or two places today. Angola springs to mind. Here the principle that no support should be given to the Government has not been observed by the Soviet Union or by Cuba. The principle that no support should be given to the other factions at war in such a situation has been breached by South Africa and other States.
That raises the problem about mercenaries. If we are to prevent external intervention in civil conflicts, it is necessary to prevent intervention not only by Governments but by individuals. This is the dilemma which faces our own Government. I warmly recommend to the Government the course pursued by the Conservative Party in office when the civil war in the Congo was being fought from 1960 to 1964. There was at that time a great deal of concern in this country about mercenaries helping the régime in Katanga.
I should like to read the statement made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on 12th April 1961, because it is a good precedent to be followed by the present Government:
Her Majesty's Government have decided that the passport of any United Kingdom national who takes up a military engagement in the Congo other than under United Nations Command will be invalidated or withdrawn. Passport authorities are being instructed to refuse a passport to any United Kingdom national who applies for one in order to take up such an engagement…".—[official Report, 12th April 1961; Vol. 638, c. 27.]
That is precisely what our Government should be doing in the case of those engaging to fight in a civil conflict in another part of the world in extremely hazardous and unsatisfactory conditions, subjecting themselves to the kind of atrocity reported in the newspapers in the past day or two. In taking such a step, our Government would be doing a service not only to the country but to the unfortunate individuals who might find themselves engaged in the conflict.
Those are the two basic principles to which I wish to draw attention. I hope very much that our Government will

make an effort to establish a greater respect for such principles. I do not suggest that they are the only principles of international conduct which are required to establish a more peaceful order among States, but an international community is basically no different from any other kind of community: order within it can be preserved only if there is mutual respect for certain established principles of conduct.
Those principles cannot be enforced simply by superior armed forces either of some great world government or of a super-Power. Similarly, in smaller communities the only courses which ultimately will secure respect for principles of this kind will be a much greater knowledge of this principle, a much more deliberate attempt to elucidate principles of this kind and an effort in international bodies such as the United Nations to formulate them and, in all subsequent actions, to try to ensure that they are observed by all members of the community.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: It is my intention to revert to the subject matter of the motion and to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). Before doing so, however, I wish to say a few words on another topic on which only two Members have touched, namely, our dispute with Iceland in the context of international political morality. It is not only among a few people that there are grave doubts about the conduct of our present policies on Iceland. That does not apply only to matters of morality. I agree with what has been said about the legality of the situation, but what is happening and has happened there recently cannot be regarded as being helpful in supporting the cause of ourselves and our allies against much greater threats.
When I saw the name of the hon. Member for Harlow against the motion, I had a shrewd suspicion that in his speech he would be somewhat selective in his condemnation of immorality throughout the world. I am not surprised that he did his best to disclaim selectivity, and, although most hon. Members have spoken about everything except the motion, it is only fair to the hon. Gentleman to deal specifically with the question whether he


was selective and then move to one or two wider issues.
The motion refers to
support from abroad given openly or in a clandestine manner to reactionary individuals or cliques seeking to deny political freedom…
I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to tell us whether, when he drafted the motion, he included the Soviet Union as being one of the reactionary regimes which he condemned.

Mr. Newens: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categoric answer, but I would undoubtedly condemn, and did condemn, the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Sir F. Bennett: I asked a very simple question. I gather that the Soviet Union was not uppermost in the hon. Gentleman's mind when, in his motion, he condemned reactionary regimes.
The hon. Member for Harlow spoke a good deal, and was very selective, about what was going on in Angola. He objected particularly to intervention there by South Africa. He gave unspecified interventions at an earlier date as justification for the Soviet and Cuban intervention there. He did not give details. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that, in asking which came first, the chicken or the egg, he does not need to rely on the views of Conservative Members. President Kaunda of Zambia, who is not a recent adherent to the Carlton Club, President Kenyatta and President Banda of Malawi—indeed, half the free and independent African nations—do not share the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what has been happening in Angola.
The hon. Gentleman next said that, although he was not selective, for brevity's sake he would mention only three countries that he particularly deplored—and then added a fourth, the United States of America. The three he mentioned as oppressive régimes were Brazil, Indonesia and Iran. That is a broad political spectrum, but he said not a word about the Soviet Union. Did it not warrant a place in the list? Why did he choose only those three?
The hon. Gentleman thought that he was unfairly attacked and said that he disliked oppression wherever it existed. If it is allowed, I will bet him that

Hansard tomorrow will show that 80 to 90 per cent. of his speech was directed against other than Communist repressive Powers. That does not show the nice balance that he claimed in challenging international morality.
The argument about morality in international affairs has gone to and fro, but I am certain that it will never exist as long as people blatantly indulge in double standards, the death knell of any moral judgment of other countries. Such standards are made worse when they are applied so that only countries hostile to this nation escape abuse and only those which are friendly come in for cheap criticism.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that everyone has double standards in international affairs: they are impossible to avoid. I admit to my own immediately. At the moment, of 200 nations in the world only 25 enjoy parliamentary or liberal democracy. If we intend to condemn countries for being authoritarian, we have a busy time ahead of us and the number of our trading and other partners will be severely limited.
Of course I want liberal and parliamentary democracy spread throughout the world. The situation is not very good at the moment, but one hopes that it will improve. As long as I have to form a judgment, however, I confess that my double standard is a preference to be more understanding about those countries which are friendly to my own and which present me and those whom I represent with no threat than about those countries which threaten and abuse us and menace us with future conflict. On balance, I would say of authoritarian States "We hope that they will in time develop towards a more democratic régime, but in the meantime I prefer those which do not threaten this country."
The hostility of the Labour Party—occasionally of Ministers, usually of hon. Members opposite below the Gangway—appears to extend the other way. The classic example was when a dozen young men who had nothing whatever to do with politics wanted to come here to play cricket. All possible power and influence was exerted to prevent them from doing so. Since, we were told, there was no legal way of stopping them, the present Foreign Secretary, then Home Secretary, eventually exerted pressure because


visitors from a régime like South Africa were an affront to this country.
A little later Mr. Shelepin came here. Far from being a young man who enjoyed playing cricket, his chief distinction lay in ordering the assassination of Ukranian emigrés. When I asked questions about that, I was told that we had no right to stop him. When I pointed out that we had stopped the South Africans although we had had no right to do that either, there was a deafening silence. I wonder whether the reason was that it was not as safe to offend Mr. Shelepin's TUC hosts as it had been to offend the MCC.
Many refugees from the Right-wing Chilean régime have been allowed to come and settle here. We have rightly patted ourselves on the back for our humanitarianism. I am still waiting to be told how many refugees from South Vietnam, including those deposited in a sinking ship in Hong Kong harbour, have been allowed to come to this country. Whenever I ask, I am told that we are waiting for an appeal from the Secretary-General of the United Nations or something like that. In case any hon. Member doubts what I say, let me make it clear that my first action tomorrow will be to put down a Question asking for the numbers of refugees from Chile and South Vietnam respectively who have been allowed to come here. Hon. Members will then be able to judge from their own Minister's answer whether what I say is correct.
But worst of all recently was the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to the execution of five Spanish terrorists. Ministers, Back Benchers and commentators said the most violent things, on three grounds: first, the Spanish régime was a horrid one, second, the terrorists had not had a fair trial and, third, it was a had thing to execute terrorists.
All that may have been justified. It probably was a mistake to execute those terrorists, and I do not think that their trial was particularly fair by our standards. But the indignation expressed, including the temporary withdrawal of our Ambassador from Spain—I do not think that he was much missed for that short period—were gestures of outrage, although no British subjects were involved.
I have recently been twice to Berlin. There, it is a question not of the execution of terrorists but of the daily execution, shooting and wounding of young men and women, children and old people by guards who receive a bounty for every person they hit. I was actually in the city when a five-year-old Turkish child fell into the canal and drowned because it was more than half-way across and the East German guards would not allow the Western guards to get the child out.
Where then were the deputations from the Left? What was the Tribune Group booming about then? How many times has the British Ambassador been withdrawn from East Germany? Yet this involves not five terrorists but hundreds of people whose only crime in life has been to try to escape from the Communist paradise to the capitalist hell.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The one sad thing about this House is that morality tends to be relegated to Fridays, and Friday subjects. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has, by his motion, promoted morality as a subject to be dealt with for the rest of the week. I commend him on that.
I contribute as a Christian and a former diplomat. I am aware of the difficulty of treading that narrow path between other-worldy idealism and the harsh realities of national self-interest in our international relations. In my brief remarks I shall try to avoid a semi-academic discussion of the definition of "national interest". The question of the separation of moral man and immoral society was dealt with effectively in the speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and, to some extent, in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard).
There are considerable dangers in seeking to apply moral standards to international relations. Many of those dangers have already been dealt with. There is the danger of over-simplification and distortion in foreign policy situations. I instance the Middle East, with the complex entanglement of moralities between the rights of the Israelis to the security of their frontiers and the rights of the Palestinian peoples. It is a dangerous


man who over-simplifies to the extent of adopting wholly the stance of one or other protagonist in that struggle.
The issue of dual standards has been touched on. The hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) fell into the trap to which he referred—the danger of one side of the House saying "Yah boo" to the CIA and to American imperialism and the other side saying "Look at what Soviet imperialism is doing." We need to look at world situations in as evenhanded a way as possible.
The hon. Member for Aldershot also mentioned the danger of ignoring key elements in the national interest. The present conflict with Iceland has been mentioned. There is a danger of oversimplifying and imagining that it is a sort of David-and-Goliath situation, and adopting an altruism from the comfort of a London armchair or the Back Benches of this place, at the expense of our communities in Hull and Grimsby—generously sacrificing another of one's principles. That is hardly a commendable moral stance.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow in stressing the universality of human rights and in saying that this should be a key element in our foreign policy. It has been a perpetual theme of the radical traditions of this country, where in many cases self-interest has been sacrificed—for instance, in the case of the cotton workers and the American Civil War. It has been a continuing theme in Socialist thought—a stream of which I form a part—and it was reinforced by the addition of those liberal internationalists to the Labour Party in the 1920s. To be in the vanguard of the anti-colonial movement is something to be proud of. Only Rhodesia remains to complete what has been, on the whole, a happy ending to that chapter of our history.
On what current topics do we expect to find a moral element in our foreign policies? First and foremost I instance the new international economic order. We are dealing with a new world context in which the developing world is beginning to realise its own muscle in its relations with the developed world. I pose the following questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State: what is the British programme to reinforce the attempt to achieve a more just economic

order in accordance with the resolution of the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations? What support do Her Majesty's Government propose to give to the attempt of the "77" at UNCTAD IV at Nairobi in May to secure the stabilisation of commodity prices, provision for buffer stocks and the indexation, vis-à-vis the prices, of manufactured goods.
In the international order there is a certain morality of prices, whereas it international discussions proceed at their leisurely pace many children will die. What efforts will the Government make to prevent the EEC becoming a privileged Power bloc for the products of the Third World?
The rôle that the Government played at Lomé was encouraging, but there should have been the same moral outrage over tea from Sri Lanka as there was over conditions in the coal industry in this country in the past. I was brought up with the industrial ballad:
There is blood on that coal".
Is there adequate supervision of the overstocking of milk powder, and other commodities in Europe—commodities that affect distribution and prices on the world market?
The problem of Chile has been mentioned. Have the Government taken sufficient note of the allegations of torture and other acts? Why did it need an outrage against one British citizen, Dr. Cassidy, to bring the ambassador back home? I understand that his family is still in Chile. Why was there not a protest in general terms against the violation of human rights in Chile?
Will the Government take steps to secure the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution requiring South Africa to vacate the independent territory of Namibia? What protest has there been by the Government at the annexation by the Indonesian Government of the territory of East Timor? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford made a telling speech about the importance of the principle of self-determination in the conduct of foreign relations today.
There is a profound suspicion that the United Kingdom Government were concerned with the United States Government in the 1970–71 period in uprooting a community of 1,000 people to create


a naval base at Diego Garcia. If that is so, what conceivable moral justification can there be for that action?
Will the Government prevent large-scale loans to the South African Government, in view of the exploitation of the black population in that country? Will the Government continue to expect British firms with less than a 50 per cent. stake in South African companies to report on the conditions of employment of their black employees? Will the Government, in the light of Mr. Jock Hall's revelations about the Marconi communication equipment, redefine the strategic embargo in relation to South Africa?
It is easy to be cynical today about the idealism of so many of the radical thinkers of the past and of the leaders of the Socialist movement. I think of passages such as the one in Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" in which he says:
It interests not particular individuals but Nations in their progress and promises a new era to the human race.
This appears to be wholly naiÏve, simply in the light of Buchenwald and of conditions in Soviet slave camps. Yet, with all its complexities, there is still, just as in Niebuhr's "The relevance of an Impossible Ideal", in another context, a need for the Government to import moral considerations in general into our foreign policy and, in particular, into the sort of instances that I have cited.

6.40 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): As other hon. Members have done, I should like, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on introducing the motion and on stimulating what has been a very lively and thoughtful debate. He brought to the attention of the House the problems of the abuse of human rights, 30 years after the United Nations Charter was signed and 27 years after the signature of the Declaration of Human Rights. It is a sad commentary on the events of the past three decades.
I want to show during my remarks that, while I am much in sympathy with and support the principle of the motion, there are phrases within it which are unacceptable. I shall deal with those. Before doing that, I want to congratulate

the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) on making his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench on foreign affairs. I hope that we shall have more foreign affairs debates in order to give him more opportunity of speaking from that Bench.
It has been a very wide-ranging debate, and it would be quite impossible for me to deal with all the points raised. In any case, I want to deal with the motion. There were, however, one or two specific questions on which I ought to comment.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) made some proposals about the sort of initiative that should be taken by the United Kingdom or the Nine in relation to the Middle East and the problem of the Palestinians. I do not think that the moment is yet ripe for such an initiative, though it is a matter which we and our colleagues in the Community discuss very frequently.
The question of Palestinian representation is basically for the parties more directly concerned to resolve. For our part, we and other members of the Nine have stated that we recognise the rights of the Palestinian people and the expression of their national identity. This was spelt out in the speech of Mr. Ivor Richard, our United Nations delegate—which I thought was most unfortunately attacked by the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)—in the debate in the Security Council

Mr. Stonehouse: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Ennals: No, I shall not give way. I have many points with which to deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised a number of questions. I cannot deal with them all but I shall touch quickly on two or three of them. I think that I agree with him, in raising the question of the gap between the rich and poor in the world, that perhaps the greatest human right is the right to live, and the most positive expression that we can make is by showing morality in how we deal with the problems of this deep gap. Without being able to go into detail, I should like to say that we have made a significant contribution leading up to the last session of the General Assembly. We are following this through in preparation for the UNCTAD conference in Nairobi in May.
As my hon. Friend knows, we were much involved in the drafting of the resolution on Namibia which was passed unanimously by the Security Council last week, and we shall be active in seeking its implementation.
As regards East Timor, my hon. Friend also knows that we joined with the majority of the Security Council in the resolution which expressed regret at events and which re-emphasised the importance of the self-determination of peoples.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the United Nations, will he deal with a point that is of some importance? He has mentioned Mr. Ivor Richard. I have certainly no quarrel with him; he was once my pair. However, these are the words that Mr. Richard used. He said of the United States:
She has isolated herself, irritated her friends and encouraged her enemies.
Are those the views of Her Majesty's Government, or was Mr. Richard, as British Ambassador, speaking solely for himself?

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Richard was making, in a sense, an off-the-cuff comment. I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there were aspects of what he said that might perhaps have been better put. However, basically Mr. Richard represents the Government with great distinction.
I come to the issues that have been raised. Unhappily, there is nothing new about torture or about prisoners of conscience. Restrictions on human liberty have been the hallmark of the dictator and the oppressor down the years. There is certainly no reliable evidence that today there are more political prisoners than there ever were in history. We can, however, say—and this is on the good side—that people are more conscious of these crude breaches of human rights and liberties than ever before, whether these breaches come from dictatorships of the Left or of the Right or from other forms of Government.
In its last annual report, Amnesty International records action taken for the release or relief of political prisoners in well over 100 countries. Its activities are directed towards Governments of the Right and the Left, in all parts of the world. It reports action which it has taken in 37 countries in Africa, 22 in

Asia, 21 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 20 in Europe and 12 in the Middle East.
The widespread use of arbitrary arrest, imprisonment without trial and detention is a feature of a world in which the concept of Western-style democracy, which we treasure and which we hoped might be implanted in other areas for which we had a colonial responsibility, is steadily decreasing. In Latin America there are only four countries which have experienced as much as 15 years of constitutional rule. In Africa, 21 States have military Heads of Government. In Asia there has been a similar trend towards more authoritarian regimes.
It is a very disturbing fact that there is evidence that more and more States are practising torture as an integral and sometimes highly sophisticated, part of the political system itself.
Torture has been roundly condemned, of course, in the House and certainly in the United Nations. As a Government, we were actively involved in the drafting of the declaration that was carried by last year's General Assembly. However, this generalised condemnation is undermined by some who justify torture in certain circumstances. They rely on the philosophical argument of a lesser evil for a greater good. What they mean is that they use it to defend their own power and privilege.
There has been some tendency in the debate for condemnation to be rather discriminatory. As a Government, we must say that we condemn breaches of human rights, whether from the Right or from the Left.

Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ennals: No, I have given way already.
The motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow comes of the old Labour democratic Socialist tradition, the Labour Party and its belief in the basic human rights which found expression in his own work in the battle for colonial freedom and that of many members of our party. Thirty years ago, when one-third of the world was under British rule, we could always point to injustice in overseas territories and say "Do something about it." Now, our writ runs in very


few and very small territories. However, there is still a temptation for those who campaign for human rights—and rightly campaign—to point to flagrant breaches of human rights in other countries and to say to the British Government "Do something about it", as though somehow we had the power to influence the course of events.

Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ennals: No. I am trying to answer the debate. Even though we are not the world's policeman, it is sometimes thought that perhaps we ought to be the world's lawyer or social worker. That is a rôle we cannot totally fulfil.
What has my hon. Friend asked us to do? He has asked us urgently to condemn all abuses of human rights where-ever they occur. If he wants us to do it in the generalised sense, we do it. I have done it. We have done it many times. Our Government have been for human rights. It is easy to do it. However, it is a tall order to expect us, as a Government, to speak out as Amnesty International can in its capacity as a nongovernmental organisation. We should be lecturing about two-thirds of the world. It was right for the distinction to be drawn about what non-governmental organisations and groups usefully can do and what Governments can do. We have to consider the likely effect of our action.
Time and again as a Minister I have been asked to make representations to this or that country about some real or apparent breach of human rights. I am asked to do something about it. However, if our assessment is—and it often is—that a formal protest would not be likely to assist the persons or groups concerned, and might be actually counterproductive, what purpose would be served by the intervention except to give satisfaction to those who had urged us to make it?
We have to be realistic. We must consider the circumstances. Sometimes a public protest along with other countries may be the most effective means of influencing a situation. Sometimes a personal and confidential appeal may be best; and, by its very nature, if something is done on a confidential basis we

cannot make a statement about it. Sometimes we can act through the United Nations, and sometimes we can act together with our partners in the European Community.
The instant approach or protest which does not help the individual or the group concerned is pointless and is irresponsible. A diplomatic protest will often be considered as a form of interference in the internal affairs of the country concerned and most nations, including ourselves, are pretty sensitive when other countries try to tell us how we should manage our own affairs. We have had recent examples of their trying to do so. Their protests are often counter-productive. Therefore, in general the answer is "Yes", and sometimes in particular, as I shall go on to say.
My hon. Friend's motion also calls on the Government
to refuse to supply arms
to countries following policies which are a serious breach of our concept of human rights. Arms transactions are normally straightforward commercial transactions, though the use of the export licence system gives us the right to intervene, and we will often do so. The initiative is usually taken by the purchaser. The customer decides first what he needs and then approaches the manufacturer. He will order what he considers will best suit his needs, provided that quality, price and delivery are satisfactory.
We for our part would welcome an international agreement to reduce the trade in arms. We are ready to discuss this with other countries at any time, but the prospects at present are very slight. If there is an increasing world-wide demand for military equipment, it is certainly a matter for regret, but it is an illusion to suppose that a decision by the producer will affect the intention of the consumer. He will simply take his business elsewhere and it may well have an effect upon the development of our trade.
Hon. Members have rightly pointed out that, although we must stand for morality, we also have an obligation to consider the interests of our own people. An action which does not help the citizens of a country where there may be a serious breach of human rights is not much good, and it may be that that action will also


damage the interests of our own people in terms of exports and employment.
Of course, there are occasions when action is taken. South Africa and Chile are clear examples where the policies of the country concerned have been so deplorable in respect of human rights and liberties that world-wide action is called for.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) was not prepared to answer my hon. Friend's question and state his position on Chile. He was being discriminatory and said, in effect "I am prepared to condemn one group but I will not condemn another."
I am sure that we as a Government were right to impose an embargo on the supply of arms to both South Africa and Chile, but the general use of military trade as a sort of seal of political approval or condemnation makes little more sense than to take similar action in respect of trade in general. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House recently that trade is not a badge of approval. He stressed that Britain trades with the world and must always do so, because we must survive.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend suggests that we should use respect for human rights as a criterion for the provision of aid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said our main criterion for giving aid is need. My hon. Friend will agree that that is what it should be. It is our policy to devote the major proportion of our aid to the most needy countries and to the neediest sectors of their population. In that sense, therefore, our aid is apolitical, as I believe that it should be. It is given as far as possible for the benefit of the peoples concerned. By doing so we are helping to promote their human rights.
I readily concede that there may be times when we have to consider the suspension of bilateral aid. We might have to do so simply because we are not convinced that the aid is being properly used or it may be that the activities of a Government are so repugnant or create such feeling in this country that we could not condone such aid.
There is no hard-and-fast rule. Each case must be considered on its merits. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree

with me that there are serious objections to using aid as a method of political influence, yet in a sense he is saying that we should do that. There are objections to our saying, for example, "We will help you provided that you adopt this or that policy". We have already seen too many examples of aid used for political purposes to seek to do the same ourselves. It can only produce an unhealthy relationship between the aid donor and the aid user.
There is another aspect of my hon. Friend's motion which carries some dangers. He urges us
to oppose most strenuously military or clandestine interventions by outside powers".
I agree with him, but he gives a let-out to some who may seek to intervene by suggesting that intervention is permissible where the mass of the people support such an intervention. Who is to establish the views of the mass of the people? We have no way of doing so. The argument could be used, with or without justification, for intervening by one side or the other in the civil war in Angola. It gives a let-out to the intervention, which we have strongly condemned, of South African troops in Angola and, equally, the presence in Angola of over 10,000 Cuban troops. The Russians used the same argument years ago for their interventions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. In more recent times it is a defence which I suppose could have been used, and perhaps it was used, by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in supporting an insurrection in Oman which had virtually no public support.
So therefore, my hon. Friend has it wrong. It has been said from the other side of the House, but I agree with it, that there have been great changes in Oman. The interesting thing, apart from the changes which are taking place, was that there was no very large sign of public support for an attempt at an externally inspired insurrection. So it is a very dangerous argument. In 1976 it is an argument that can be used by those foolhardy mercenaries who have taken their lives and other people's into their own hands by volunteering for service in Angola.
Let me underline in this debate what has already been said on Angola by my


right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We condemn all forms of intervention, and we call for an end to the fighting and for a political solution. The mercenaries, by their irresponsible actions, are not only acting against Britain's interests: they are bringing more suffering to the people of Angola. The presence even of unauthorised mercenaries in support of one side gives supporters of the other side a spurious justification for their own intervention. Intervention in the internal affairs of any country gives to others an argument for intervention, turning internal conflict into international conflict.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) in his very interesting speech on the question of passports is under consideration. This and other matters will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he speaks tomorrow.
My conclusion is that we must be positive in our support of human rights. Of course there will be occasions when we must speak out, and the subjecting of Dr. Sheila Cassidy to torture by the régime in Chile was a good example. But we must be positive in other ways, and the most positive ways are not always by making public statements.
First, we must promote human rights at home and in the territories for which we have a responsibility. In this connection our aid programme and the whole of our economic programme, particularly in relation to commodities, is valid.
Secondly, we must support the cause of human rights in the United Nations. Thirdly, we must work for the expansion of human rights by agreements such as was reached at Helsinki. Though we are not satisfied with the results that we have yet seen, neverthless it is a step in the right direction.
Fourthly, we must use our influence with our friends——
It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business).

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the matters contained in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill committed to a Select Committee in the last Session of Parliament:

That the Committee do consist of Fifteen Members:

That Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Betty Boothroyd Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman. Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Anthony Fell, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. M. S. Miller, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James White, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Committee:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House: to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time: and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:

That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:

That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill in the last Session of Parliament, together with Memoranda laid before them, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

7.0 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: Hon. Members will recall that in the debate on the Second Reading of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill on 7th February last year the Minister of State. Department of Health and Social Security gave a firm undertaking that:
Should the eventuality arise that the House goes into a different Session before the Bill is considered, the Government give the commitment to the sponsors of the Bill that they will re-establish the Select Committee."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 1794.]
The motion now before the House honours that undertaking.
In the event, the Select Committee was unable to complete consideration of the Bill before the end of the Session. Not that it was dilatory in any way; under the guidance of its Chairman, the right hon Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—I pay a warm tribute to his skilled, tactful, good-humoured but always firm leadership—the Committee held 23 meetings, took evidence in public on 14 occasions, and, in its Third Special Report to the House, made nine interim recommendations, which the Government accepted in their entirety.
As the Select Committee explained in its Report, its recommendations were not exhaustive, and they were made without prejudice to any further recommendations that a re-established Select Committee might wish to make. The Committee added that it was its belief that a re-established Committee should be able to report without delay in the next Session.
I hope to show, therefore, that there is indeed a pressing need for the Select Committee to be re-established so that it may complete the work on which it embarked last year, which was interrupted in the way I have just described.
We are discussing a complex matter, and it may be helpful to the House if I say something about its history. Not long after the Abortion Act became law, it became apparent that, whatever benefits it was conferring, grave abuses were taking place in the private sector. Licence to provide abortions in return for money led to large numbers of foreign women flooding here for the purpose of obtaining abortions that were illegal in their own countries. Apart from anything else, practices detrimental to the interests of those women were occurring.
That growing public anxiety was justified, and that the situation was one that cried to heaven for remedy was confirmed by the Minister of State when, with re-freshing candour, he said, in the Second Reading debate a year ago:
I deeply regret that such abuses have been allowed to continue for such a long time. I profoundly wish that my own profession had puts its house in order. I wish that, immediately following the passage of the Act, when the abuses were at their height, successive Governments had used administrative measures to prevent abuse."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 1806.]
The anxieties in some part of the medical profession and the police service, among the wider public and hon. Members had already grown so great by 1971 that the then Government set up the Lane Committee to review the workings of the Act. That Committee took a great deal of expert evidence, made its recommendations and reported in 1974. I make a brief reference now to the Lane Report because it is relevant to the motion.
The Lane Committee found that while the Act had relieved a vast amount of individual suffering it had resulted in a greatly increased number of those seeking legal abortion, had involved a substantial

increase in the work load of National Health Service gynaecological departments, and had led to a marked in-equality, over the country as a whole, in the provision of services, and that this in turn had encouraged the growth of a flourishing private sector. The Lane Committee also confirmed what we already knew, namely, that in the private sector there had been gross abuse as a result of the opportunity to make money arising from the great number of foreign women who came to this country to have abortions.
The Lane Committee was convinced that the official figures of such traffic, which it considered were alarming, were not reliable and that abortions were being performed without any certificate being completed or any notification being made. It found that some doctors were interpreting the Abortion Act in a way contrary to the intention of Parliament and contrary to the intention of the author of the Act, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). In short, it found that the Act was being interpreted in a way contrary to the intention of Parliament that it should not be lawful to permit abortion on demand.
The Lane Committee considered—in one of those rare references to the fact that abortion is not just another operation but involves the deliberate destruction of an unborn child—that the upper time limit for termination, after which a child is capable of being born alive, should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, and it made a number of other recommendations regarding regulation and control.
Inevitably, since Parliament was given no opportunity to discuss the Lane Report and very little was done to implement any of its recommendations, public anxiety, far from abating, grew even greater. That is the background against which we must view the emergence of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White), which led directly to the setting up of the Select Committee last year. That Bill may have had serious defects—I am not arguing about that, because it was a Private Member's Bill and one can understand why it might have had drafting defects—but it was an honest attempt by the hon. Member to force the issue and to get something done.
Whatever hon. Members' views may be on the subject of abortion, as such—I suggest that that is not really the issue tonight—I think that the whole House and the country should be grateful to the hon. Member for Pollok for making it possible for Parliament at long last to focus attention on the workings of the 1967 Act. Indeed, the House recognised this when it gave the Bill a Second Reading and accepted the Government's constructive suggestion that the Bill be remitted to a Select Committee. The Minister of State himself told us:
The Bill's essential provision is to prevent the abuses which we all know have existed in the private sector I believe that sensible legislation now for the private sector will strengthen, not weaken, the 1967 Act."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885.c. 1806.]
The Bill certainly had the effect of waking up the Department of Health and Social Security. No sooner had the hon. Member for Pollok announced his intention of introducing his Bill—before anyone knew what it contained—than the Department started asking for information about abortion in the private sector—information that it should have obtained long before, certainly after the Lane Report had laid bare what was going on and had said what should be done about it. For example, it was not until mid-January 1975 that Parliament learned that the Department was sending out a questionnaire to private abortion clinics asking such questions as "What care do you provide? Where are your patients referred from? How many foreign patients do you take?"
It was hardly surprising, therefore, that the House gave the Bill a Second Reading and accepted the Minister of State's wise advice that such a delicate and complex subject as this was better suited to the procedures of a Select Committee—which has the power to call for expert witnesses and papers—than for the normal Standing Committee.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North): Many hon. Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of the controversy would have accepted a Select Committee. If the Bill's sponsors felt so strongly that it should be submitted to a Select Committee, why was a vote forced on the Bill in the previous debate?

Sir B. Braine: I have no responsibility for forcing votes. I cannot answer that question, and it is not relevant to the argument before the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue that matter later. All I am saying is that the decision that the House took, on the Minister's advice, was wise and sensible, and in the end proved fruitful. It was fruitful because, despite sincere differences among members of the Select Committee, we were able to make nine interim recommendations for action, all of which the Government were able to accept.
I tell the House quite frankly that the majority of members of the Select Committee would not have agreed to those interim recommendations if we had thought there was any likelihood of the Select Committee's not being set up again. It was clear, at least to most of us, that if the intentions of Parliament when it passed the 1967 Act were not to be flouted, there was urgent need for further clarification and improvement of the law.
Moreover, there are other matters which have arisen since 1967, not foreseen at the time, which require either amendment of the existing law or new administrative Regulations, or both. As the Select Committee did not have sufficient time to take evidence on these matters or to discuss them at any length and so to make recommendations, it was unable to complete the task for which it was set up. We were not worried about that because we had been given a solemn pledge by the Minister of State that if we did not complete the business it could be continued in a further Session. I cannot believe, therefore, that the House would be prepared to leave the matter there.
May I give just five examples of what I have in mind? First, the 1967 Act certainly did not intend to provide abortion on demand, as the Lane Committee Report later confirmed. Nevertheless, in paragraph 201 of the Lane Committee Report it asserted that
some practitioners interpret the Act to mean that…termination is possible in every case".
That is still the situation.
Later, in paragraph 603, the Report said that in parts of the private sector patients could have their pregnancies terminated on request, for payment, when


there were no lawful grounds for that to be done. To quote directly, it said:
in short, in some parts of the private commercial sector the provisions of the Act have been flouted and abortion on request has been the rule".
Who, in the face of that, can doubt that the law needs to be clarified and strengthened so that flagrant abuse in return for financial reward is brought to an end?
It would be naïve to think that the Select Committee's interim recommendations concerning the examination of women seeking abortion will eliminate that scandal. Indeed, an assistant under-secretary at the Home Office told the Select Committee:
If it is indeed the case that…a doctor can lawfully perform an abortion on the strength of a mere statistical risk, then I am not even sure that you get home by providing that he has got at least to see the woman and examine her.
Those last few words
to see the woman and examine her
underline the type of scandalous abuse and disregard of the interests and health of the women concerned that have been going on ever since the Act was passed.

Mrs. Helene Hayman (Welwyn and Hatfield): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole tenor of his argument so far has been about the enforcement of present legislation and in no way about changing the law? He was been describing the way in which doctors abuse the present Act. We need to enforce the Act. There is no need to change the legislation in the light of anything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir B. Braine: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, who has been a good colleague on the Select Committee. If she will listen to the rest of my argument she will realise that what she said is not so. Let me proceed. If the hon. Lady catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, no doubt she will be able to take up the point.
Nor will our interim recommendation concerning the control of fees be adequate in itself. Dr. Coplans, of the Association of Anaesthetists, told us that
controlling the price will not stop people interpreting the Act in a way which you could say was abortion on demand.
That is my first example. Clearly, therefore, further consideration must be given to this crucial question.
Second, it is necessary—here is the answer to the hon. Lady's point—to bring the upper time limit of 28 weeks for abortion, except in cases where there are serious medical indications, into line with current medical opinion and modern techniques. In any event, the Lane Committee thought that the limit should be reduced to 24 weeks. We are told that the World Health Organisation is considering a period of 22 weeks. Sir John Peel, one of the most distinguished gynaecologists of our time, thinks that the upper limit should be 20 weeks. Indeed, the British Medical Association, commenting on the Lane Report, warned that
even with the reduction from 28 to 24 weeks, however, the position still exists that owing to an error in the calculation of dates a foetus intended for destruction could be born alive and be capable of functioning as a self-sustaining whole independent of any connection with the mother.
Therefore, whatever change is thought to be appropriate—it is clear that whether we accept 24 weeks or 20 weeks as the upper limit, some change is long overdue—it must involve amendment to the Abortion Act combined with the repeal of the 28–week presumption in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929—the course favoured by the Lane Committee.
The Select Committee's very modest interim recommendation that late termination be restricted to certain places with certain facilities is, in my view, no substitute for such a statutory provision, since that recommendation involves leaving legal time limit as it is. That makes legal nonsense. It is a situation that the House cannot continue to tolerate. For that reason alone there will be an argument for the Select Committee to consider what is the most suitable legislation to be introduced.
Third, there is the disturbing question how far the conscience clause in the 1967 Act protects doctors and nurses who have a genuine conscientious objection to abortion and the extent to which the careers of those who have such objection are damaged.
There is no doubt that discrimination exists and that it causes fear and distress. I do not want to give the House my own opinion. Let me quote the evidence which the Royal College of Obstetricians


and Gynaecologists gave to the Lane Committee:
…medical members of hospital gynaecological and anaesthetic departments…are fearful that if they show distaste or conscientious objection to terminating pregnancy their position may be prejudiced. This fear is amply justified for we have certain knowledge that when candidates are being interviewed for appointment as registrar, senior registrar or consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology it is now almost the rule for them to be asked their attitude to the implementation of the Abortion Act…we submit that it is quite improper for candidates for posts in obstetrics and gynaecology to be discarded or outruled on the grounds that they have a conscientious objection to performing any particular operation.
Discrimination continues. My attention has been drawn recently to two cases—one of a distinguished Royal College Gold Medalist who has been driven out of the country by it, and the other, a general practitioner, who for years sought posts involving gynaecology in different parts of the country and was turned down repeatedly because of his views on abortion. Such evidence should be laid before the Select Committee. We have already taken convincing evidence from the Royal College of Nursing that great distress and anxiety exists in the nursing profession as well.
In recent years Parliament has spent a great deal of time legislating against the evils of discrimination on grounds of race or sex. How can anyone justify discrimination against members of the healing professions who have a conscientious objection to the destruction of life in the womb? Is the House of Commons going to say that it cannot find time to discuss a matter of this importance? That is really what the issue is about—whether time can be found for that matter, among others, to be discussed. It is utterly disgraceful that discrimination of this kind should be practised. Clearly, a reappointed Select Committee should consider the problem and decide whether it can best be overcome by amendment of the 1967 Act or by fresh administrative regulation.
Fourthly, the Select Committee should be given an opportunity to make recommendations on the question whether, in criminal prosecutions, anonymity should be granted to witnesses who have had abortions. The Lane Report commented

on the difficulties caused to the police by the present situation which frequently leads to women being unhelpful to the police in their inquiries.
An Assistant Under-Secretary at the Home Office told the Select Committee that, in principle, the Home Office would go along with the idea of anonymity, though possibly at the court's discretion rather than as an absolute right. The Home Office was concerned, however, that this question should also be considered in the context of offences other than abortion.
Since the Select Committee last discussed this question, the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape, under Mrs. Justice Heilbron, has recommended that rape victims be granted anonymity in criminal proceedings. I understand that the Advisory Group's recommendations have had a sympathetic reception from the Home Secretary, and rightly so. 1 submit that a reappointed Select Committee should now consider the question of anonymity in abortion cases in the light, inter alia, of the recommendations of Mrs. Justice Heilbrcn's Advisory Group.
My last example—hon. Members will be able to produce many other examples of cases in which consideration must be given to the question whether legislation is necessary—is that it is clearly unsatisfactory in law and in morality to leave the blacklisting of pregnancy advice bureaux to the indirect means of control proposed in the Select Committee's Third Special Report. That was intended purely as an interim measure indicating to the Government what we thought should be done. Here again, there is need for new statutory controls, which witnesses from the Department of Health and Social Security repeatedly urged on the Select Committee.
Here, then, are five good reasons—there are many others—for reconvening the Select Committee and allowing it to complete the task with which it was entrusted by the House last year. I urge hon. Members to support the motion. It does not commit any hon. Member to one view or another on any of these contentious matters. The final recommendations of the Committee would have to be decided by the House itself. The Select Committee could not determine the matter. It would make recommendations


to the House, and the House would then have the opportunity of deciding whether to accept them or not.
I hope that, because of that fact, hon. Members will tonight decide to agree to the motion without a Division, but whatever decision they make it is clear that these grave matters cannot be left where they are. The law must be clarified and amended. What better body than a Select Committee to review what needs to be done in this context?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that in the approximately two and a half hours that remain for the debate, 20 hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. James White (Glasgow, Pollok): I shall be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker. On 2nd February last year I gave a pledge to the House that I and my fellow-sponsors of the Bill were not playing tricks. Tonight, I again assure the House that we have not shifted ground. Having said that, I want to put paid to a rumour that I and my fellow sponsors brought about our proposed amendments because of the book "Babies for Burning ". That story is utter and complete rubbish, and we challenge any hon. Member to say when any of us have said that.

Ms. Maureen Colquhoun (Northampton, North): Will not my hon. Friend accept that he tried to use it, and that now that it has been discredited he is backing out?

Mr. White: I never at any given moment tried to use that book, nor did I quote from it.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): But would not the hon. Gentle man agree that none of the allegations made in the book has ever been disproved?

Mr. White: I have never at any given moment quoted from that book, either in the House, in the Select Committee or outside the House.
It was the Government who came to us and offered us a Select Committee. We did not go to the Government for it. The Government, in their wisdom, realised that

the amount of evidence we had to hear could not be properly heard in a short space of time and that a year would not be enough. We were guaranteed by the Government that the Select Committee would go from Session to Session.
What did the Select Committee achieve? First and foremost, I must pay my respects to the chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). He was most capable and certainly one of the best chairmen we could have had. Secondly, although at times we in the Committee disagreed and divided, we did not experience the bitterness that arose during the proceedings on the 1967 Act. It was a very nice Committee, and I should be delighted to meet with the same hon. Members in that Committee again.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead): This is the second time in the debate that the statement has been made that the Government promised that the Select Committee would go from Session to Session. Will not my hon. Friend acknowledge that the House, and not the Government, appoints Select Committees?

Mr. White: Yes, I agree. But had I thought that there was any danger of the Select Committee sitting for only a short time, I would have pressed the Chairman and the Clerk for much more evidence to be called—evidence which I wanted to call and would have called earlier had I thought that there was any doubt about the Committee's continued existence. I still believe that the House is fair, and I believe that in fairness it will give us the majority that we want tonight. I do not see any inbuilt danger.
I want to call certain evidence, for example, from Professor Peter Hunting-ford, who willy-nilly goes about saying that, irrespective of what we say, he will practise abortion on request. He interprets the present law as allowing abortion on demand. I think that he should appear before the Select Committee.
I think that we should hear Professor Hugh McLaren, from Birmingham, who has disagreed very strongly with some of the evidence that the Select Committee has heard. In fairness to all, we should hear the other side. I would be keen to call Professor Ian Donald, from Glasgow, who is in favour of my Bill. I should


like to hear Dr. Margaret White, from London. I should like to hear each and every one of these people, two of whom practise abortion.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am very confused in listening to my hon. Friend. I believe he said on the radio this morning that he was concerned that 1,000 women from Glasgow had come to England to have unwanted pregnancies terminated according to law. Now he says that he wants to call Professor Ian Donald. Is it not Professor Donald's responsibility that these 1,000 women from Glasgow have to come to England because they cannot get their pregnancies terminated in Glasgow according to law?

Mr. White: I shall come to the Glasgow situation. I happen to represent a Glasgow constituency. One of the reasons why I brought in the Bill was my total dissatisfaction with the situation in Glasgow. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me as she listens.
I should also like to have evidence from behind the Iron Curtain——

Mr. James Dempsey: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point—[Interruption.] I have not spoken on this subject before. I am no expert. I do not claim to be an expert. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) should be so insulting. All I want to ask is this. Has the Committee considered taking evidence in Glasgow, from a wide section of interests in the West of Scotland, on this subject—interests which for some time have been producting facts and figures to show the degree of abuse that is taking place in the operation of the existing law?

Mr. White: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Committee could well go to Glasgow. Indeed, the majority of my sponsors happen to be Scotsmen. The Committee, in fact, has never been to an abortion clinic. I should also like evidence to be taken from sociologists and others in various parts of the world who claim to be experts on backward babies. I should like evidence to be taken from the woman detective, Chief Inspector Brenda Reeves, who did some

fairly full research into the problem on behalf of the police.
What I am really interested in, however, is why ladies must pay to have an abortion. All my life I have been totally opposed to fee-paying for schools and fee-paying for beds in hospitals, and I am bitterly opposed to the idea that one needs to have 60 £1 notes in one's pocket before one can get an abortion. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), how many of his constituents can afford £60, not counting the train fares.

Mrs. Hayman: May I give the answer? There is in the 1967 Act a conscience clause, which we all supported, which allows National Health Service practitioners to refuse to do the operation on grounds of conscience. That is why women have to pay £60 a time.

Mr. White: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) will join me in doing something about that. That is a good reason for reappointing this Committee to hear all the evidence.
I am opposed to the practice in abortion clinics by which people have to pay the money before they have the operation. That is not the type of abortion centre we ought to have. The proposal for a Select Committee offers a way of ensuring that any future legislation designed to amend the 1967 Act will be soundly based.
I fail to see any reason why this motion should not be supported. A Select Committee cannot legislate. It can only recommend. Nevertheless, I think that everybody will agree that the Committee has done a first-class job and should be allowed the opportunity to carry on and deliberate on what other recommendations ought to be brought before the House.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I hope I sound more coherent than I feel, since my recent contact with the medical profession has had more to do with influenza than with abortion.
This motion is without precedent in the House. A point that has been over-looked by the two previous speakers is


that the motion invites us to set up a Select Committee to consider a Bill which lapsed in the last Session. It is not the same Committee as that which the Government offered during the debate a year ago, when the suggestion was that the sponsor should withdraw the Bill and that a Select Committee on the working of the Abortion Act should be set up to consider the Lane Committee's Report and the hon. Member's Bill. That suggestion was turned down by the House. The Bill received a Second Reading and was committed to a Select Committee instead of to a Standing Committee.
Although the Government are honouring a moral commitment by moving the motion, I believe it is seriously defective because the Committee will, according to its terms of reference, be restricted to consider matters contained in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. That is a very important limitation. If the motion empowered us to keep a watchful eye on the working of the Abortion Act generally, on the development of the new day-care facilities or the lack of facilities in the National Health Service in Birmingham or Glasgow, or the difficulties of operating a conscience clause, bearing in mind the evidence given to us by the Royal College of Nursing in favour of setting up specialist units, there would be a case for setting up a committee. But many of the things that we might like to review are not in the hon. Member's Bill and, therefore, are outside our powers of review according to the motion.

Mr. Leo Abse: Since the hon. Member's Bill had a Long Title to enable it to be comprehensive, by allowing an amendment to the existing abortion law, what reason does the hon. Member have for suggesting that a Select Committee appointed on these terms would feel any sense of limitation in dealing with all the matters that he has adumbrated?

Mr. Steel: The hon. Member is advancing a novel point of view if he thinks that we can go beyond the matters contained in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill about an extension of National Health Service facilities. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B, Braine) made a valid point when he talked about the rule of anonymity. This is referred to in the Bill. But there has been a recommenda-

tion from Mr. Justice Lane's Committee, and we have had a recommendation also from Mrs. Justice Heilbron's Committee, and it is our job to stir up the Home Office to do something about this. What is required is action, not more discussion.
To set up a Committee confining itself to reconsidering a Bill that has been wholly rejected by the bulk of the medical profession is a waste of parliamentary time. Much has happened in the year since we last considered this matter. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists voted by 28 to 2 that they were not dissatisfied with the working of the 1967 Act. The British Medical Association voted overwhelmingly, by 360 to 4, to oppose the terms of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). Is it seriously suggested that we should take up that matter again as a starting point?

Mr. Dan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the previous Select Committee ruled out certain abuses? Does he not now agree that there are further abuses to be ruled out? Hence the need to set up a Select Committee.

Mr. Steel: If the hon. Gentleman will let me make my own speech he will find that I shall be coming to the question of abuses. The situation a year ago was that Parliament was faced with a series of abuses of the abortion law. One could criticise successive Administrations for Lot acting and reporting to the House on what they were doing to check these abuses. It was as a result of questions in the House from Members with different views that the previous Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), set up the Lane Committee in 1971. It reported in March 1974. It came to the conclusion that
the Act has relieved a vast amount of individual suffering",
and that members of the inquiry were
unanimous in supporting the Act and its provisions. We have no doubt that the gains facilitated by the Act have much outweighed any disadvantages for which it has been criticised.
The Committee, however, also said that
Much of the criticism is justified: in consequence of the Abortion Act a situation has arisen in which a very small number, of perhaps about 20 or 30 members of the medical profession and those associated with them,


have brought considerable reproach upon this country.
Despite the publication of the Lane Committee's Report, the House had no Government statement on the matter. The Committee had reported but the House was left in the dark. The hon. Member for Pollok has, in a sense, provided a useful service in raising the whole matter and enabling us to get started on our work. The fact that we were able to elicit from the Department for the first time some of the steps that it was already taking—for example, the development of the black list of referral agencies—was of value. They were able to close clinics by using the powers of the Act—powers which had existed all along in the Act but had not been used before. In the wake of the Select Committee's work the Department is to operate stricter controls, such as fees and certification. The Department is taking several important steps, and has begun successfully to end many abuses.
I am not surprised that the House voted overwhelmingly for the Bill of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee and to the useful work which was accomplished by the Select Committee in the previous Session. We were able to produce a nine-point series of recommendations that were accepted by the Secretary of State for Social Services. I think they have been useful, doing much to highlight abuses of the Act and to recommend further steps that should be taken.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok mentioned three abuses in his speech last year. He said:
The base of commercial operators is the growing number of foreign women who are lured into Britain in the knowledge that for cash a group of doctors will perform illegal abortions on request, totally ignoring the criteria of the Act.
That was perfectly true. The Minister of State took up the same point and said:
France since 1972 has always provided the largest single group of patients: in 1974 it was 36,541. To many people this is a very high figure which raises serious questions about the need to have a statutory ban, but it may well drop considerably following the introduction of the new laws."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 1758–1805.]
That last sentence has turned out, a year later, to be true. As other coun-

tries have changed their laws, the picture of abortion in this country has become totally different. The number of women coming from France in 1974 was 36,541, but last year it dropped to 14,809. The breakdown for 1975 shows that 7,400 women came from France in the first quarter, but in the last quarter the number had fallen to 1,411. There has been a similar decline from other countries, such as Germany, as more liberal abortion laws have been introduced. We have broken the back of the problem of importing foreign patients.
Interestingly enough, the number of women from Italy and Spain has increased, for the obvious reason that no abortion law exists in those countries. The number of foreign women coming to this country was down by 37 per cent. in 1975. The total number of abortions was down by 14 per cent. The picture today is very different from what it was a year ago, the figures now being in decline for the first time since the passing of the Act in 1967.

Mr. Dan Jones: Yes, due to the work of the Select Committee.

Mr. Steel: Partly due to the work of the Select Committee, but mainly but to the action taken by other countries in developing their own legislation.
Another matter that influenced the House a year ago and to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok referred was the book entitled "Babies for Burning". It is a little late in the day for the hon. Gentleman and his supporters to disclaim that book's influence. It provided headlines in many newspapers, and many respected commentators quoted from it freely. Copies were sent to Members.
When the Committee examined the authors I must say that I had never seen such a pair of charlatans before a Select Committee. I do not wish to go into the claims that were made and the credentials that were offered, as those are all matters that may be before the courts, but in the introduction to the book there appeared this sentence:
Every quote we reproduce was tape recorded by us.
Yet when we asked for the tapes of the most gruesome parts of the book it was admitted that no tapes existed. We were


told that the mechanism was faulty, that the newspapers had lost them, or that the police had possession. There was always some explanation, but by some strange coincidence it was always the most sensational parts of the book for which no tape was available. There were plenty of tapes available to cover the more ordinary parts of the book. The book uncovered many abuses, but the most blatant and gruesome sections were unsubstantiated.
Nor have the authors ceased their activities since appearing before the Committee. In a letter to the Church Times in September, Mr. Lichfield wrote:
The Select Committee has some forty hours' playing time of tape recorded evidence from myself and Mrs. Kentish, the co-author. They have tapes of a doctor talking of 'Hitler's progressive thinking' in this matter and the prospects of selective breeding '.
The Committee had no such tapes, yet these lies are put forward the whole time. I stress the nature of the book because hon. Members who sponsored the Bill appeared anxious to disclaim any connection with it.
However, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) reviewed the book in the Spectator only a week or two before the House was asked to make its decision. I shall make two quotations from the hon. Gentleman's review. First, he wrote that the authors
came to the problem as virginal and pristime as only young journalists can be.…".
He then wrote:
Yet one cannot forbear to pay them tribute …".

Mr. Abse: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will quote more of my remarks. Clearly, it would have been far better if the authors had published the tapes without making any comment. I emphasised that in my article. Why does the hon. Gentleman not quote that? Why does he pretend that we do not have hours and hours of tapes? They are in the possession of the Select Committee. The view has been taken that we have the time in front of us to examine them.

Mr. Steel: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to quote further from his article I shall do so. He wrote:
It would have been wise and more effective if the authors had simply left the tapes to speak for themselves: the grim recounting requires no embellishment.

I agree, but there would not have been a book, because the outrageous tapes did not exist.
I do not pretend that the working of a difficult piece of legislation will be plain sailing from now on; there is bound to be variation within the medical profession. But I take issue with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok on the bonafides of some members of the medical profession who operate within the National Health Service in London. The suggestion is made that there are certain consultants who provide abortions on demand. I met one such consultant recently. Although this consultant did not go along with the mainstream of medical opinion, he had an equally sincere and conscientious regard for his patients. There was no question of merely granting abortions. There was certainly no question of performing abortions without examination, interview and regard to the length of pregnancy. All those matters were taken into account before the consultant made up his mind.
It is totally false to suggest that abortion on demand exists within the National Health Service. However, there is a wide discrepancy of interpretation. That will always exist within the medical profession, on this and other matters. It is our duty to lay down the boundaries of the criminal law. That is what we did in 1967. It is not up to us to judge whether individual abortions should or should not be carried out. As long as the practitioner acts in good faith under the 1967 Act, such judgment should be left to him.
Normal parliamentary checks are open to us. If the House wishes at any time to change the substantive law it should do so by the normal processes and not by hiding behind a Select Committee. I believe that it will be a waste of parliamentary time and resources to set up another Select Committee to operate within narrow terms of reference. I also believe that in the light of the evidence that has accumulated during the past year, and as published in the past month in the British Journal of Psychiatry for the first time, the picture is much clearer. The study of the British Journal of Psychiatry was based on women who had abortions at a London hospital. It is the only study of its kind since the Abortion Act came into force in 1968. The article


was written by a number of doctors. No evidence prior to the study had been published in Britain.
The article claims that the evidence provides documentation to the effect that the Abortion Act has led to relief from distress not measurable in statistical terms. It is in that spirit that we should decline to set up the Committee.

7.49 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Although I was one of the Members who helped to put the 1967 Bill on to the statute book by voting for it, I did not take any active part in the proceedings. Abortion has never been one of my main interests, although I have taken a keen interest in many aspects of the National Health Service. Therefore, when I was appointed to the Select Committee I had to study the matter in much greater detail. As a result of that study and of being a member of the Select Committee—I believe that I have a 100 per cent. attendance record—two matters have become clear to me. The first point is not easy to state without appearing to be a female chauvinist, if there is such a thing, but this is how I feel.
It is clear from the comments on the Bill in Committee that it is impossible for many people to understand the totality of involvement in which a woman is caught by an unwanted pregnancy. It is an involvement not only for nine months or for the duration of childhood but for the rest of the woman's life. Because nobody but the woman herself can fully appreciate the totality of this involvement, it must be her decision whether she can cope with that total situation, for whatever reason, and that must be the decisive factor in giving an abortion.
I am not saying that we must not do everything possible, by more effective contraceptive methods and advice, to try to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But if that fails and the woman decides to have an abortion, she should be entitled to have her pregnancy terminated within the law in the safest possible conditions. I stress this factor because there were poignant reminders in written evidence given to the Select Committee by those who had experienced the horrors of backstreet abortion. Relief was expressed by nurses in evidence to the Committee that they no

longer had to treat the sickening after-effects of such cases. No woman should be driven to such desperation again by putting back the clock with restrictive provisions such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). If the Select Committee is re-established with its present membership, however, I believe that that will be the result. There is an imbalance in the Committee's membership in favour of those restrictive provisions.
The Select Committee clarified for me the basic soundness of the 1967 Act. This was made clear by the whole weight of medical evidence and there was a good deal of it ranging from major national bodies, such as the British Medical Association, to individual testimonies by doctors, many of whom work in socially-deprived areas such as that part of North London in which my constituency is situated.
It was clear that if the Committee proceeded with the main provisions of the Bill it would go against the whole of that medical evidence. It was clear from the evidence that many of the abuses stressed by the Bill's sponsors either never existed at all or had been cleared up by administrative action. Nevertheless, there were positive points on which our deeply-divided Committee was able to agree. These were incorporated in the Committee's Third Special Report. That Report was accepted by the Secretary of State, and action is being taken by the Department on all its recommendations.

Mr. Ian Campbell (Dunbartonshire. West): I see that my hon. Friend has the Third Special Report in her hands. Will she read paragraph 5?

Mrs. Butler: The Report which I have in my hands is the Fourth Special Report.

Mr. Campbell: Will not my hon. Friend read the Third Special Report, paragraph 5?

Mrs. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend can quote that paragraph if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Campbell: May I remind my hon. Friend that paragraph 5 contained a unanimous recommendation that the Committee should be re-established in the next Session?

Mrs. Butler: I am coming to the point my hon. Friend is seeking to make, which is also contained in the Fourth Special Report.
The Minister of State in his evidence made clear that, in his view, no further legislation was needed on abortion at present. In those circumstances, I felt that the Select Committee would serve no further useful purpose. Accordingly, I moved an amendment to the Fourth Special Report on 10th November as follows:
Early in its proceedings it became clear that the Committee was deeply and irreconcilably divided on the main clauses (and purpose) of the Bill.
I stress that matter because it has been said that the Bill had defects, but it was the defective purposes of the Bill that worried many of us.
The amendment continued:
Despite this, and in order to be constructive, it, therefore, decided to concentrate its deliberations on a number of difficulties in the administration of the 1967 Act on which the members of the Committee could agree, and made recommendations accordingly in its 3rd Special Report. Now that the Secretary of State has accepted and acted upon these recommendations, and time is needed for them to become effective, the Committee believes it can serve no further useful purpose at this time, and accordingly reports the Bill to the House.
Unfortunately that amendment was not accepted, but it remains my view and I urge the House to reject the motion to set up a Select Committee again. We need time to see how the Department's administrative action works out. Furthermore, I believe that this House and the country need a breathing space from the controversy and passions that have been aroused by this unfortunate Bill.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who appeared to rest his case largely on the fact that the terms for re-establishing the Select Committee as set out on the Order Paper are not sufficiently wide.
I cannot recall any time during the Select Committee meetings when any point or subject matter was ruled out of order by our Chairman as being outside the Committee's terms of reference. We discussed every possible angle, report and

statement in relation to the subjects we were able to cover in the Committee. One has only to look at the Long Title of the Bill to see how wide it is:
To amend the Abortion Act 1967 and to make further provision with respect to the termination of pregnancy and matters consequential thereto.
It would be difficult to envisage terms wider than those.
I wish to speak for only a few moments, and I shall concentrate on the essential point of why I believe that the Committee should be re-established. After the Second Reading of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill on 7th February 1975, the House agreed without a vote that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee. The Minister of State made clear in that debate that the proposal for a Select Committee would ensure that future legislation to amend the 1967 Act would be soundly based. The Select Committee has not yet been able to deal with any possible important changes to the 1967 Act. Indeed, in that debate the Minister went much further and said
…the Government believe that the Bill should have the benefit of sustained scrutiny by a Select Committee."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 1796.]
The Minister is an honourable man and I am sure that when he replies he will admit, openly and frankly, that the Select Committee has not yet had the opportunity to examine the Bill or some of its most important clauses in toto. I am sure he will recommend to the House that we should re-establish the Select Committee tonight. If he does not do so, he will be going against his own view that the Committee should be able to give the Bill sustained scrutiny—something we had no time to do in the last parliamentary Session. Indeed, we were overwhelmed with paper.
Something like 200 major written submissions were sent to the Select Committee. Several thousand letters were sent to the Select Committee. I doubt whether any single member of the Select Committee can claim to have read every single letter that was sent or to have read in great detail every one of over 200 written submissions. We have a great deal of work to do if the Select Committee is re-established.
I should have thought that there are very few Members who have not had a significant amount of correspondence


from their constituents on this matter in the last two or three years. Whatever view may have been expressed in that correspondence, it clearly shows that many millions of people in this country are concerned about the operation of the Abortion Act 1967.
The Committee has not discussed the first two clauses in the Bill, which are probably the two most important and key clauses. They relate, in effect, to abortion for social convenience and abortion on demand. These have not even been touched by the Select Committee, because we agreed at the beginning that we would quite openly try to reach agreement in certain areas where there was a possibility of getting a consensus and where there was a possibility of making unanimous recommendations and reports to the House.
On the advice and under the guidance of our outstanding Chairman, we were right, I believe, in doing so and in trying to find the areas on which we could agree, but it is also the duty of this House to re-establish the Select Committee so that it can discuss and argue the areas in which it is unlikely to reach unanimous agreement.
There are very many other areas in which consideration is needed. One can argue very strongly that the police find themselves in an impossible position in relation to the working of the 1967 Act. It is well known that it is almost impossible to get a conviction for an illegal abortion under the 1967 Act in the context of either the National Health Service or, in particular, the private clinics. Yet a prominent gynaecologist has said openly on television, on the radio and in the Press that for all practical purposes he flouts the law of the land. He has said that he has carried out and will continue to carry out abortions on demand. How can any hon. Member say, in the context of that statement, that there is not a great deal of work to be done by the Select Committee?
I beg the House not to be complacent when it reads the latest abortion figures. I am sure that we are all grateful, whatever views we hold, that the number of abortions which took place in 1975 had dropped compared with 1974. But do not let us imagine that it is a substantial drop in the context of women resident

in England and Wales. It is only a drop of 22½ per cent. on the 1974 figure. There has been a horrifying increase in the number of abortions carried out on girls under 16 years of age. The increase is 9 per cent. In figures, that is an increase from 3,243 to 3,526. There are no grounds for complacency in that area.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Is the hon. Member saying that he would rather that children under 16 carried their babies to term?

Mr. Bowden: What I am saying is that the society in which we live at the moment and the conditions which have been created have led to a situation in which an increasing number of girls under 16 are having abortions. The very fact that this is happening proves to me that something is wrong. I want the Select Committee to examine this and find out why it is happening and put recommendations to this House.
There will be grave disappointment, not only in this House but in the country, if the Select Committee is not re-established. I believe that the House wants the Select Committee to continue to probe and question and to think about the fundamental issues involved.
Many of the supporters of the 1967 legislation are far from happy with the operation of the Act in practice. This House has everything to gain by deciding to re-establish the Select Committee tonight.

8.6 p.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: It is a year last Friday since the House debated this very contentious measure. During that time, while the Select Committee has been taking evidence—both oral and written—and drawing up its recommendations, its very existence has taken up a disproportionate amount of the time of the members of the Select Committee and Members of this House—time and energy which, I believe, could usefully have been spent on other subjects. I could quite well have done with the time and thought which I have had to put into this question in dealing with other matters of importance to this House. I regret that my energies have been diverted in that way.
It has led to a situation almost of confrontation outside this House in terms of


the general public. Many thousands of women have taken—or have, perhaps, been forced into taking—extreme positions. They have had their time taken up with organising demonstrations, and so on, on one side of the argument or the other. In my view this has been an enormous waste of energy.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has said that the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) for introducing the subject. I am not grateful for having had to waste this last year on it.
It is ironic, too, that we should have spent so much time in 1975 in considering how to extend the rights of women. We have taken some fairly small steps overall in terms of sex discrimination legislation, and by virtue of some of the provisions of the Employment Protection Act. In this way we have on the one hand been trying to extend women's rights, while, on the other, allowing, by the very existence of this Select Committee, a consideration of the restriction of women's rights. Nevertheless, the Select Committee was set up, and it called a large number of eminent people and eminent bodies to give written and oral evidence. The Select Committee made a number of recommendations. These are now familiar to us and, indeed, are being carried out.
Many of them, as I understand the evidence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, were already in train before the report was published. That fact should not go unnoticed. Indeed, I suggest that the recommendations could very well have come anyway—and probably would have come anyway—from the Department of Health and Social Security, even if the Select Committee had not considered them. Nevertheless, the Committee has done its job. I hope that will be the end of it, and that the House will vote against the re-establishment of the Select Committee.
The supporters of re-establishing the Select Committee have said that this does not end the story. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East has told us that the Committee must be reappointed in order to complete the work that was entrusted to it in the last Session, but neither he nor any other hon. Member has yet produced a valid reason why this Select

Committee should be reconstituted. Names have been bandied about of people who could be called to give evidence. Various arguments have been advanced that the Committee needs to consider amending the existing legislation in order to do this and that. I think that all the supporters of the Select Committee wish to do is to strike at the fundamentals of the Act itself.
What have these people been saying? Who would they now call to give fresh evidence to them in the context of what they are now putting before the House? Would they call representatives of the British Medical Association? The BMA has given evidence already, as have the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Association of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of Pediatricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors Association. All these bodies have said that the provisions of the amendment Bill would strike seriously at the fundamentals of the 1967 Act and, as such, should not be tolerated.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady said that she had not been given one valid reason. Let me give her one. I ask her to consider the provision for the 28 weeks to be reduced to 24. That must involve amendment of the law. It is true that the Select Committee took evidence on this. But witnesses from the Department of Health and Social Security told us that they had no view on it at all——

Miss Richardson: Miss Richardson indicated dissent.

Sir Bernard Braine: They did. It is documented. For that reason, I think that it is necessary for the Select Committee to reconvene in order to give the Government clear argument.

Miss Richardson: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East, has brought me to my next point. As I have been saying, all these eminent bodies gave evidence to the effect that they were strenuously opposd to the Bill and that they thought that its provisions——

Sir Bernard Braine: Not to this.

Miss Richardson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my point. All of them said, for example,


that they would have great difficulty in defining the words "grave and serious" and that they were words that could not be defined satisfactorily.
To answer the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, the British Medical Association said that to consider reducing the upper limit of 28 weeks would exclude serious maternal conditions occurring between 20 weeks and 28 weeks. I do not think that the Select Committee ought to consider a reduction of the period, and I do not consider that a good and valid reason to reconstitute the Select Committee, if that is what it wants to do.
Much has been said about the nursing profession. The Royal College of Nursing and the Association of Nurse Administrators themselves have serious doubts about the changes proposed in the Bill, that, including the evidence of the Home Office and of the Department of Health and Social Security, the overwhelming weight of opinion offered to the Select Committee was to leave the Act as it now is.
This proposal might have been tenable if the Select Committee had been set up to consider the Report of the Lane Committee, although I have never understood how a Select Committee could be set up to consider the recommendations of another Committee—an eminent and distinguished one at that—which took three years to report. Simply to implement the recommendations of the Lane Committee would have been sufficient, but the motion says that the Select Committee will consider the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Furthermore, the composition of the Committee is the same as before, so we must assume that the supporters of the Select Committee again want to strike at the foundations of the Act.
What we need, not only in this House but outside it, is a period of calm and to take the whole issue out of this situation of continual confrontation between one side of the argument and the other. Supporters of the Select Committee inside the House have been loud in their wish to frustrate abortion on demand and, in some cases, to frustrate abortion altogether. I hope that they noticed a recent editorial in the Crucible, the official journal of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, which

took a line in favour of working towards a genuine and responsible response to the considered wishes of the pregnant woman. This is a departure for the Board for Social Responsibility and one which I think hon. Members ought to welcome. I applaud it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Lady said that it was a departure. However, when it was reviewed in The Times, the reviewer said that it flatly contradicted the Board's own policy and the policy adopted last summer by the General Synod. The editor was speaking only for himself.

Miss Richardson: Nevertheless, he was writing in a highly respected journal, and I believe that people who write in journals do so to influence the opinions of those who read it.
To get back to my point about abortion on demand, it was always available before the 1967 Act to women with sufficient funds. The 1967 Act, for which many thousands of women are grateful, has brought within the means of thousands more women the possibility of having safe and proper abortions and has taken them away from the back-street abortions that they had before.
I should be deeply sorry to think that further restrictions, brought about by the setting up again of this Select Committee, would result in a return to that situation. I appeal to the House to give all women the facilities that are required in the present era.

8.18 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: There is one very good and important reason why the Select Committee should be reconstituted. It is simply that it has not finished its work. My information is that fewer than 10 per cent. of the submissions have so far been heard by the Committee. If any other Committee of this House was set up to examine a question and said that it had finished its work after only 10 per cent. of the submissions to it had been examined, this House would laugh it out of court and certainly not permit it to do so.
This is an issue which cuts right across party lines. Certainly it is one of the most important and basic issues that we face. I am sorry that the hon. Member for


Barking (Miss Richardson) regrets the time and energy spent on a matter of this kind, but I must tell her that there is a widespread interest in it among millions of people outside this House and that they look to us to bring some modicum of reason, sense, law and fairness into the situation.
There are several points which the Select Committee must examine more carefully. My information is that it has not yet examined them properly. The first is the new "quickie" lunch-time abortion. How can it possibly be said that this type of abortion falls in with Parliament's will? Despite what the hon. Member for Barking said, Parliament made it clear, as did the sponsor of the original Bill throughout the Committee proceedings, that it was not intended to sanction abortion on demand. That was quite clear. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said this in letters to churchmen, he said it frequently in Committee, and many hon. Members voted for his Bill because of his assurance that it was no part of his intention that Parliament should permit abortion on demand.

Mr. David Steel: What has abortion on demand got to do with the new facility which has been introduced for day cate patients? There is no suggestion that the standard of judgment involved as to whether an abortion should be carried out is any different.

Mrs. Knight: That is the whole point. How can a doctor go into the question of an abortion for a woman in the necessary depth and with the required care if she slips in at lunch-time and has an abortion in such a short space of time? The Committee should examine whether Parliament's will not to implement abortion on demand is being frustrated by the working of the Act.
Then there is the most important question of the position of doctors and nurses who are jeopardising their careers because they will not carry out abortions. I find it extraordinary that Members of this House are not prepared to give thought and sympathy to doctors who wish to practice their profession in accordance with their conscience. Not for one moment would anyone suggest that people should go to war and fight if they conscientiously objected to it. Why does

the House insist that it is perfectly proper for men to be hounded out of their jobs unless they agree to carry out operations which they loathe?
What about the legal protection of the unborn? This House spent some time last Friday debating a Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). I notice that The Times had a headline "Rights For Some Unborn". I should think it is "some unborn". It seems that the decision as to whether an unborn child shall have rights will rest solely on whether it is a wanted child. How can this House agree that only a wanted person has any rights? It is a total denial of all the things we are here to protect.
There is the question of collusion by racketeering doctors which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) dealt with in his Bill. The Committee has not touched on this question, which is of importance.
Most important of all, perhaps—and it has not yet been raised—is the question of the care of women and the need for warnings to be given to them about the nature of the operation. I have here a report from Russia. It is interesting to note that many who support abortion are vociferous in their support for the Soviet Union. Dr. Polchanova of the Central Scientific Research Institute for Health Education of the USSR Ministry of Health has written about this. I remind the House that the USSR was the first country to have abortion as a legal operation.
The doctor said:
It is one of the most important problems confronting women's clinics to reduce the number of induced abortions and by so doing to reduce gynaecological morbidity and disorders of the reproductive system. The prevention of abortions is an important purpose of health education… The very frequent development of psycho-nervous reactions following an artificial termination, and the extraordinary tenacity and punctillious observance of instructions by women undergoing treatment for sterility, are a convincing indication how necessary it is for a pregnant woman to have a personal interview with a sympathetic doctor who can prevent her making a rash decision.… According to our findings many women assume that provided an abortion is carried out at a hospital all possibility of complications is thereby eliminated. This misconception is due to the comparatively simple way women are admitted to gynaecological wards and their short stay there.


We have ascertained that the majority of women are well acquainted only with the comparatively rare complications of an operation for the termination of pregnancy, i.e. perforation and haemorrhage; they are quite inadequately informed about the most prevalent consequences, i.e. gynaecological inflammatory diseases, frequent complications during subsequent pregnancies and confinement, disordered function of the ovaries and so forth. Therefore it is necessary to take more active measures based on up-to-date scientific data to combat the idea so firmly held by the public that an abortion performed in hospital conditions is a perfectly safe and harmless operation.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles mentioned a survey which had been carried out involving women who had had an abortion. The difficulty about putting any credence upon the findings of that survey lies in the fact that only 60 patients out of the 360 were followed up at all. When I inquired from those who were informed about this scientific area whether this would be a reasonable sample to work on, I was told that it was not a reasonable sample. I am concerned about the women. As I understand it, before any other voluntary operation a woman or man is warned of the dangers if there are dangers connected with that operation. So far as I am aware, abortion is the only voluntary operation for which there is no legal commitment to warn the person that dangers exist and may well follow the operation.
What are the people who oppose the setting up of the Committee once more so frightened about? The Act is on the statute book. Women are having abortions every day under it. The Committee seeks merely to go further into these important matters. It would be a sad day if this House said that it no longer had the time or energy to debate whether Parliament's will was being carried out, or to talk about men and women who are being prevented from working in their chosen professions, legal protection for the weak and helpless or medical care for women. There is no reason why those who oppose the setting up of the Committee should be so flighty in their opposition. We ask merely that this vital question be examined properly. So far it has not been.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: I wish to refer to the speech of

my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). She spoke or abortion on demand being available, in the past, to those who could afford it. That is a point I accept, as I am sure most hon. Members do. In itself that does not justify abortion on demand. Those of us who are opposed to abortion, or opposed to abortion on demand, would condemn that fact just as much as my hon. Friend does. My hon. Friend referred to a period of calm. If we analyse that, what it really means is a period of standstill, when we do nothing. It also means adopting an ostrich-like attitude when we bury our heads in the sand and hope that the problem will go away. It will not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) said that abortion was not her main interest. As a father of four I, too, can claim that abortion is not my main interest. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the moral, religious and humanitarian issues involved. Whether we are for or against abortion, I hope that all of us will credit people who take a different view with being sincere in that view. This is an emotive issue, and I hope that we shall discuss it without bitterness or rancour.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has done himself less than a service. He implied that the Select Committee was a waste of time, and could achieve no purpose. [Interruption.] That was the impression I obtained from what he said. If I am wrong, I apologise. I refer the hon Gentleman to the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 7th February 1975, when we were discussing the Bill. My hon. Friend said:
This proposal for a Select Committee offers a way of ensuring that any future legislation to amend the 1967 Act will be soundly based.
Therefore, the outcome of the deliberations of the Select Committee will be of vital importance in any future legislation on abortion. My hon. Friend also said:
I have not, I fear, dealt with all the issues but I hope I have said enough to indicate that a Select Committee on this Bill has a major task ahead of it."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885, cc. 1797–1806.]
That was the view of those of us who were concerned about the re-establishment of the Select Committee.
I wish to make my attitude perfectly clear. In spite of my Jewish name, I am a Roman Catholic and I have very strong views on abortion. I recognise the sincerity of those who disagree with me, and I hope that in this and subsequent debates they will recognise my sincerity.
This subject is of vital importance to all sections of the community, whatever their views may be. We have seen in the Public Gallery tonight the extent to which some people are prepared to go to influence the House. I do not say that in a critical sense. We have all received correspondence from our constituents expressing views for or against abortion. I hope that hon. Members have done the same as I have done and have written to their constituents saying, "Even though we disagree with you, we appreciate your having brought your point of view to our attention."
We must not only consider this question very seriously; it must be seen by the public that we have done so. That is why it is vitally important that the Select Committee should have a full opportunity to consider the mandate placed before it. My hon. Friends have referred to groups and individuals who have been interviewed by a Select Committee. There may be many more who wish to be interviewed and to put their point of view. We should reappoint the same Select Committee, otherwise we shall have to go through the whole business again, and that would not do justice to the decision of the House or to the people who elected us.
The Select Committee has yet not been in existence for a year. The deliberations of the Select Committee on Race Relations, quite rightly, took a long time. Abortion is an equally important issue. On 7th February 1975 my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
Should the eventuality arise that the House goes into a different Session before the Bill is considered, the Government give the commitment to the sponsors of the Bill that they will re-establish"—
I emphasise "re-establish"—
the Select Committee.
It will ill behove the Government or the House to go back on such a definite commitment. If we do so, in the eyes of the public it will be a reflection not only on the Government but on Parliament itself.

Dr, M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend not accept that what the Minister gave was not a commitment that the Committee would be re-established, because the Government could not give that commitment? What the Government could do was give a commitment that they would table a motion such as this for the House to decide. Therefore, does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government are honouring that commitment by doing that tonight?

Mr. Cohen: I do not agree. My hon. Friend is trying now to put words into the Government's mouth—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] You obviously have not been listening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Cohen: I beg your pardon, Sir.
The Minister said:
.…the Government give the commitment to the sponsors of the Bill that they will reestablish the Select Committee.
That is a clear commitment. The Government did not give the commitment to the House particularly but to the sponsors of the Bill and the House accepted that. He went on:
…and the Government believe that the Bill should have the benefit of a sustained scrutiny by a Select Committee.
To spend less than 12 months on such a vital issue does not amount to a sustained scrutiny. So there is every case for the House to continue——

Mr. Abse: On the issue of the commitment, is it not a fact that what the Minister specifically said, in another context from the one quoted by my hon. Friend, is:
Should the eventuality arise that the House goes into a different Session before the Bill is considered"—
as it has—
the Government give the commitment to the sponsors of the Bill that they will re-establish the Select Committee."—[Official Report, 7th February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 1794–86.]
That is a commitment which was given. Is it not more casuistry to suggest that it can now be avoided?

Mr. Cohen: Yes. That is what I said, actually.
The House has provided the opportunity for some sustained consideration


and scrutiny by a Select Committee. I hope that we shall justify the decision and the commitment that we gave the people of this country by giving the Select Committee the opportunity to continue its scrutiny and consideration so that, at the end of the day, we shall be able to consider its recommendations and make our decision.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This is one of those rare occasions when the House is obviously deeply divided on an issue which cuts right across the party lines. As such, it is an occasion when each of us individually has to make up his own mind as to how he votes. Therefore, although I am speaking from this Box, my voice, such as it is—I apologise for it—represents no party line, no party or manifesto commitment. I speak only for myself, but I hope that my views may commend themselves to some hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Since I have not spoken in any abortion debate since the Report stage of the Bill of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in 1967, perhaps I might start by making it clear where I stand on the main issue. That might help the House to weigh the advice that I may be giving on the point before us.
I supported the original Bill on Second Reading and on Third Reading, although on Third Reading with some misgivings. As the record shows, on Report I spoke to amendments which the sponsor felt unable to accept. But I supported the Bill in the end because I thought that there was a great need to define the circumstances in which it was right for a pregnancy to be terminated, that there was a need to take powers to deal with private establishments where the abortions were done and that it was necessary to provide protection to doctors and nurses with conscientious objections. The Bill did all those things and I voted for it.
I have never supported either of the extreme views—on the one hand the view that there could be no abortion or an abortion only if a woman's life was at stake, or on the other hand the view that abortion should be available on request unless there were clear medical

contra-indications. I imagine that that view is held by a great many hon. Members. I do not believe that abortion should be confined strictly to medical reasons. The struggling, inadequate mother of six who finds herself pregnant yet again with an unwanted pregnancy seems to present a case where social reasons may well justify terminating the pregnancy.
However, I also believe that the unborn child has a right to life. That is a view which must be given full weight. I cannot accept the doctrine that abortion is a woman's right to choose. Any human life—anyone's life—even life in embryo, is not at anyone's unfettered disposal, not even the mother's.
Therefore, for me this has always been a question of striking a balance. It has been a difficult question and it is one to which the House on this second time has yet to address itself. I hope that the House will forgive that brief personal testament, but it may be helpful and was a way of putting my own credentials before the House.
Within a few months of the 1967 Act becoming law there was growing public concern at the way it operated in practice. It is right to put on record, because it is often forgotten, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) took a great deal of action to tackle the worst of the abuses as they became apparent. He set up a special investigation branch within his Department. He exercised a rigorous scrutiny, so far as resources allowed, over abortion clinics. Many licences were withdrawn or suspended and steps were taken to deal with the dreadful business of touting at airports and stations.
My right hon. Friend also set up the Lane Committee in February 1971 which was to look more closely at the operation of the Act although it had restricted terms of reference. That Committee reported in April 1974. It provided a mass of information and made a number of useful recommendations. However, the report was not debated until the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) presented his Bill last year.
However, that did not still public anxieties. When the hon. Member for Pollok presented his Bill many right hon. and hon. Members recognised that the supporters of the original Act had


a not insubstantial case to answer. The hon. Gentleman's Bill may not have been the right way to frame that case. Indeed, I am pretty clear that his Bill was not the most appropriate vehicle for reform. There was no doubt about the deep anxiety, which was felt in all parts of the House, about the way in which the original Act was operating. Therefore, there was widespread support—which I shared—that the Bill should go to a Select Committee.
Presumably the assumption which the House made, when it accepted the motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee, was that that Select Committee would examine and report on all the matters that were put in issue by the Bill. It was recognised during the debate that that might well take longer than the last Session. The words of the Minister of State, as reported in Hansard on 7th February 1975 at column 1794, have been quoted many times this evening and I shall not weary the House with them again. However, at that stage the Government were committed to re-establishing the Committee. That meant that they were committed to putting a motion before the House and presumably to supporting it.
Therefore, the question is: has the Committee examined and reported to the House on all the issues raised in the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Pollok? The only possible answer must be "No, it has not". The Committee has heard a great deal of evidence and has reported on some of the issues, but it has not reported on all the issues.
The Committee made nine valuable recommendations, all of which were accepted in principle by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State. When reporting to the House in its Third Special Report, the Committee had this to say:
In their Second Special Report Your Committee undertook to make an interim Report. In so doing they deal only with some matters on which they believe they have received sufficient evidence to make recommendations upon which the Government ought to take action now without awaiting any further Report.
Paragraph 5 of the Report says,
Your Committee emphasise that their recommendations are not exhaustive and are made without prejudice to any Report which

the re-established Committee may make on the Bill. Indeed it is for this reason that Your Committee in their present Report have not referred to the provisions of the Bill. It is their belief that the re-established Committee should be able to report without delay in the next Session.
If one examines the minutes of the Committee, one finds that there was no dissentient voice to either of those paragraphs. That was in July. Since then the Committee has seen many organisations: the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Brook Advisory Centre, the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Nurse Administrators and the Health Visitors Association, and it has seen the Minister of State. Yet when we came to November, at the final meeting, as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has told us, there were some members of that Committee who by then had decided that there was nothing further for them to do.
What has happened? We have some clues now from the speeches in this debate and from the circular sent around by a number of members of the Committee to all hon. Members, I imagine, at the end of last month. The message of the circular was "Because we are unlikely to be able to reach a consensus, therefore no further useful purpose would be served by reconstituting the Committee."
I do not share that view and I do not think that the House as a whole ought to share that view. I have just spent most of the weekend in bed—with a heavy cold—reading a great deal of the evidence tendered to the Committee. It is obvious that much—indeed, most—of the evidence was opposed to the particular provisions of the Bill of the hon. Member for Pollok. However, I think that only a very deeply prejudiced supporter of the original Act of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles could fail to recognise the genuine voices of concern that all was not well with the operation of that Act.
Nor is it true that the nine measures which the interim Report put to the House represent the full extent of the legitimate areas of concern. There is a whole raft of matters, matters on the day-to-day application of the provisions of the Bill to situations that actually happen in real life and on which a great deal of evidence was heard, on which we


till have to have a report from the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) mentioned a number of them, and no doubt other hon. Members will be able to mention others.
For me, there are three matters which seem to be of critical importance in deciding whether the 1967 Act requires to be amended, all of them matters on which evidence was given to the Select Committee and all of them, I suspect, matters on which it ought not to be difficult for the Select Committee, if it is prepared to try to be objective and to exercise some good will and harmony where that can be done—as it has in the past—to be able to reach agreement.
The first matter is the operation of the conscience clause. Freedom of conscience is the very stuff of liberty. Even when we were faced with the full terror of Hitler's tanks and bombers, we recognised the freedom of conscience of individual men and women who were pacifists. Freedom of conscience was written into the 1967 Act, but who can read the evidence tendered by the Royal College of Nursing, or even the evidence tendered on the last day of evidence by the Minister of State, without recognising that not all the intentions of Parliament in 1967 are being met?
Can anyone who reads the Minister of State's long answer to Question No. 1995 on page 374 of the Report—I have no intention of reading it to the House tonight—be in any doubt that willingness to perform abortions is a term of some appointments under the National Health Service? I would find it helpful to have the Committee's view on that, perhaps if necessary even its divided views. The Committee has heard a lot of evidence, but most hon. Members do not have time to real all the evidence. That is what we appoint Select Committees for. This is a matter of great importance.
The second point which is important is a corrollary of the first. It was the intention in the original Act that it should be possible to have therapeutic abortions on the National Health Service, though it was always recognised that there would be a substantial private sector. The evidence both to the Lane Committee and to the Select Committee has shown that there is a huge variation in availability of

therapeutic abortions under the National Health Service facilities between different parts of the country.
Again, this is a matter of some importance to the House and to the country. If a patient's condition indicates the desirability of an abortion, if the law does not prevent it and if, as was the intention, termination should be available under the National Health Service but it is not, surely we need to know the Select Committee's view on that and what measures might be necessary to remedy what is a defect.
I am not suggesting that it is remotely possible in the foreseeable future—in the next few years—that the National Health Service could or should become the sole source of therapeutic abortions. My point is that there are enormous variations in the availability of abortions between different parts of the country.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: What the right hon. Gentleman says is true, but he has put to the House two irreconcilable points. He says on the one hand that he objects to the attempt by the National Health Service to ensure that in every part of the country there are doctors and nurses willing to perform abortions. He says that he objects to that because it interferes with the career prospects of some doctors. He says on the other hand that he wants the full availability provided for women in all parts of the country. It seems that he is asking not for a Select Committee, but for a Committee with the judgment of Solomon, or perhaps for the Magic Circle, to reconcile these two irreconcilables.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not share the hon. Lady's pessimism. Nevertheless, both those matters are problems and they both fall within the terms of the Bill and within the terms of reference of the Select Committee. They are problems upon which the Select Committee has heard a great deal of evidence. My point is that, faced with this, at least the House might have the benefit of the Select Committee's views on these two problems.
The third problem, which I believe is perhaps the key question of all and, perhaps, the question that lies behind the circular and some of the very bitter opposition to the re-appointment of the Select


Committee is: does or does not the Act in practice allow abortions on request to take place?
I accept, as perhaps the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) did not, that it was not the intention of the sponsors of the original Act that it should allow that. The hon. Member for Rox-burgh, Selkirk and Peebles said this:
We want to stamp out the back-street abortions, but it is not the intention of the Promoters of the Bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request."—[Official Report, 22nd July 1976; Vol. 732, c. 1075.]
Indeed, if that were not so, why did we spend so many hours, days—and, indeed, nights—and weeks arguing about it all?
Yet it is possible to state that it is on request. Dr. Coplans, the anaesthetist representative on the CCHMS, said this to the Select Committee on 23rd January in answer to Question No. 1006:
I believe that some people interpret the present Act as something which allows them to move very far to 'on request' and others do not.
One reason—this has been exhaustively examined by the Committee—is the statistical argument. The argument is that if one takes a pregnancy before the twelfth week there is greater risk by letting it run to full term than there is by procuring a termination, and therefore, some people say—on the argument of balance of risk—the right thing would always be termination without any examination of the patient, without taking account of her health or circumstances. That argument has been used not perhaps in the public sector but certainly in the private sector.
Professor Sir Stanley Clayton, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, was perhaps one of the Committee's most important and distinguished witnesses, and his evidence is frequently read as showing that the Royal College was not upset at all by the existing Act and, by a vote of 28 to two was in favour of preserving it. Yet on the question of misuse—the misuse of the intention of Parliament on the balance of risk argument, the so-called statistical argument—Sir Stanley was clear. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) put to him—this is Question No. 1216 in the evidence—
…there should be a proviso there which would not make it possible for people to use the general statistical argument?

And Sir Stanley replied:
Yes, I would accept that.
I have mentioned only three matters, but there are many others on which the Select Committee has still to report to the House.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Read the next sentence.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall. It was.
I do not seem to meet this argument in practice very often.
Of course he does not, because he is a practitioner of the highest and utmost respectability. But, as the hon. Member for Pontypool said, we are dealing here with some of the fringe operators, and it is to those that we are directing the question whether they are misusing the statistical argument in a way which Parliament never intended.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Could the right hon. gentleman indicate the number of occasions, when this very argument was brought up, when the medical profession clearly indicated to us that to substitute the words "grave and serious" would have the most devastating effect on the fundamental principle of the Act?

Mr. Jenkin: I accept that.
I do not want to go too deeply into the details of the hon. Member for Pollok's Bill. I have already said that I do not like the Bill, and I am satisfied that that is not the right way to deal with the matter. But what the hon. Member for Pontypool was suggesting was some additional words to indicate the original intention of Parliament, so that the statistical argument could not be used in the way I have described.
The hon. Member's Bill has fallen, but it is always open to him or to some other hon. Member to reintroduce it. I believe that that would be a pity, because I am certain that the Bill would create more difficulties than it would solve. I am also satisfied that there is a great weight of medical opinion opposed to it. But, like many hon. Members and a great many of our constituents, I am not yet satisfied that now, with nine years' experience of the 1967 Act behind us, we have got it right. There are grave areas of public concern which go beyond the administrative changes recommended by the Committee and accepted by the Government.
If that were all, there might be something to be said for the right hon. Lady's view that we should wait and see how they work. But it is not all. The Committee heard much evidence directed to other issues of wide concern on which it has not yet reported. I believe that our constituents would think it very strange—even a dereliction of duty—if we did not reflect their concern by asking the Committee to complete the task for which it was set up. I shall vote in favour of the motion.

9.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): In intervening in this debate, I do not give a Government view on the question we are debating. The Government have no collective view. This is a moral issue which concerns matters of individual conscience and, as is traditional, voting tonight on the motion will take place on the basis of a free vote in which members of the Government will be voting in different Lobbies. It might, however, be helpful to the House if, as Minister with day-to-day responsibility for the workings of the Abortion Act, I were to bring the House up to date on the present situation.
The House will recall that on Second Reading of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill I suggested, on the basis that the sponsors had agreed to withdraw the Bill, that a Select Committee should be set up to examine the proposals contained in the Bill. At that time it was widely recognised in the House that there were some aspects of the workings of the Abortion Act, particularly the extent of abuse in the private sector, which were causing grave concern to many Members, and I have never hidden from the House my personal concern about these abuses. This concern was unrelated to the views that many hon. Members might have had on the question whether they supported or rejected the Abortion Act itself.
It was felt, I think, by many Members that a dispassionate yet detailed examination by a Select Committee on some of these matters to reinforce those already identified by the Lane Committee in its Report of the Working of the Abortion Act would help the Secretary of State and the Government, who had already embarked on a scrutiny of the working of

the Act. At the end of the debate the House decided against establishing a special Select Committee as had been suggested. It decided to commit the Bill itself rather than the proposals to a Select Committee. As a direct result of this decision, under the rules of procedure, the Bill and the Select Committee lapsed at the end of the last Session.
Some people have criticised or attacked the decision by the Government to put down this motion, arguing that we were not committed to give the House an opportunity to re-establish the Select Committee. I believe that to have refused to put down this motion would have been to shield behind a technicality that would not have been in keeping with the spirit of the previous debate or what I said during that debate, or in keeping with the wishes of the House. Whatever our views—and there are strong views in this House and outside—I think it was the Government's duty to give the House the opportunity of deciding whether or not to re-establish the Select Committee.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) for recognising so fairly in his speech that the Government have honoured the commitment that I gave. That point was reiterated by the hon. Member for Rox-burgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel).
I see my task now as trying as objectively as I can to indicate, first, what the Select Committee has already achieved and what are the issues involved if the House decides to re-establish the Select Committee.
During its sittings last Session, the Select Committee received a formidable amount of written and oral evidence from Government Departments, professional bodies and individuals, including myself. The Select Committee produced several Reports, and in its Third Special Report it unanimously presented to the House a list of nine recommendations clearly designed to reduce the potential for abuse and exploitation of patients and to improve the workings of the Abortion Act. The Secretary of State, in her statement to the House on 21st October 1975, accepted in principle all of the recommendations. I think it will help the House if I summarise the action that has been or will now be taken.
New Regulations have been made and laid before the House to implement the recommendations on disclosure of information contained in the abortion notifications to the President of the General Medical Council where serious professional misconduct is suspected, and on the examination of patients prior to certification of abortion. It is proposed that the new Abortion Regulations will come into effect on 1st March, when new forms for the certification and notification of abortions, including these new provisions, will be available for use.
My Department has also undertaken a study on certification and notification procedures and its findings in draft form are now being considered with other Government Departments.
In the private sector, the Secretary of State now controls the total cost charged to patients at all nursing homes that concentrate on abortion. Nursing homes must inform her before they increase charges above the level approved, and they are required to inform patients of the total costs of their treatment before it is carried out. These measures should contribute to preventing the financial exploitation of women who find themselves in this vulnerable, situation. Nursing homes must be able to show my Department's investigators that their financial arrangements with doctors and referral agencies are satisfactory.
My Department is in the process of drawing up a list of approved pregnancy advisory bureaux, in addition to the black list which already exists. Thirty-five bureaux have already applied for approval and their applications are being investigated and their premises and facilities inspected. My Department's special investigators will continue to make unannounced visits to nursing homes and pregnancy advisory bureaux to ensure that they are adhering to these and the other assurances required of them.
Terminations after the twentieth week are now restricted to those nursing homes which have available adequate equipment, including resuscitation equipment. Currently, seven out of the total of 57 homes approved under the Act have been authorised to carry out late terminations. As to the National Health Service, regional medical officers will ensure that all NHS hospitals where terminations

after the twentieth week are carried out are equipped with appropriate facilities.
A draft paper on the counselling of patients seeking abortion has been circulated, for consultation, to statutory bodies and organisations. We have also sent it to various voluntary bodies and those known to support and those known to oppose the Act. A revised version of the paper will be prepared in the light of comments that we receive, and the final version will subsequently be issued.
In June 1975, my Department issued a circular reminding health authorities of the Peel Committee's recommendations on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research, and where the Peel code of practice was not already in use they were called on to adopt it. In addition to fulfilling this condition, private sector nursing homes are required by my Department to give an assurance that appropriate arrangements are made for the disposal of abortion foetuses as a condition of approval to carry out terminations.
My Department is currently undertaking an inquiry into the facilities provided by nursing homes which treat foreign patients with a view to ensuring that the reception, counselling and after care of foreign patients meet the high standards expected, and to prevent the exploitation of those foreign women who are most vulnerable because of their language difficulties. I am also obtaining, as a routine feature, quarterly figures of the number of foreign patients treated at all nursing homes.
As I have said, some of these steps were being planned by the Secretary of State or had already been identified in the Lane Committee Report on the Working of the Abortion Act. Nevertheless, the Select Committee's Report gave them an additional impetus and enabled them to be treated collectively as a comprehensive package. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and all the other members of the Select Committee for the work they carried out in producing these useful Reports.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is my hon. Friend now satisfied that the reports as they


stand leave nothing further of use for the nation to be carried out? Is he satisfied that the Select Committee has reached a logical and just end to its deliberations?

Dr. Owen: I shall give my personal views later, but there is no secret about them. I gave evidence to the Select Committee as the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for the Act.
There is one important matter concerned with the working of the Act on which there is general agreement, which will require Government action and which is touched on by the Select Committee in its recommendations on abortion after 20 weeks. This concerns an upper time limit for abortion. Various proposals have been made as to what an upper time limit should be. At present, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 contains a statutory presumption of viability at 28 weeks' gestation, and this, in practice, has provided an effective upper time limit.
The Lane Committee recommended that there should be a lower limit of 24 weeks, without exception, and this has been generally supported by those consulted on the Lane Report. I told the Select Committee in November that we broadly approved this recommendation, which would require principal legislation.
The Government have tabled this motion to enable the House now to consider, in the light of progress to date, whether it wishes the Select Committee to be re-established to examine more fundamental aspects of this controversial issue. Members of the Select Committee were themselves divided on the question whether the Select Committee should be re-established, voting 5 to 4 in favour, and I think this vote reflects the problems which would confront a reconvened Select Committee in reaching a substantial measure of agreement.
The figures for resident women receiving therapeutic abortion has remained relatively stable for the last three years. The 1975 figures which have just been published show a 3 per cent. fall compared with the previous year. At the same time, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of foreign women being treated in this country in the last 12 months. There has been an overall

decrease of 37 per cent.—nearly 20,000 patients—compared with last year.
The fall in the number of foreign women is directly attributable to the new abortion law that has been introduced in France and the changed attitude being taken in some neighbouring countries. I am sure that hon. Members, irrespective of the view they take on legal abortion, will welcome this fall in the number of women seeking treatment.
As for resident women, I am hopeful that the long-overdue free comprehensive family planning arrangements that we have introduced, which became fully operative on 1st July last year, will give all women the opportunity of planning when they wish to become pregnant. I am sure that whatever our attitude on this subject we would all accept that treatment for termination of pregnancy should be a last resort and should be kept to the minimum.
A number of issues relating to abortion have been raised in this debate. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke with much understanding of the problem, raised two important issues—the question of freedom of conscience and the variations in practice in the National Health Service. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) was right in her intervention when she raised the question of possible conflict between these two beliefs. Evidence was taken on this matter by the Select Committee, and I was questioned. I think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) was right when he said that the principal matter on which no action had been taken in my hon. Friend's Abortion (Amendment) Bill was the proposal to change, and, by the words in the Bill, restrict the grounds on which doctors decide whether women may receive treatment under the Act.
On this issue, as has been testified by many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and who are members of the Select Committee, there is unlikely to be unanimity in the Select Committee—and there are many differing views outside. The British Medical Association voted 360 to 4 against any change in the grounds for abortion, and the Royal


College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists similarly voted, by 28 votes to 2, in favour of retaining the existing provisions. Their President told the Select Committee that he thought they
would gain little by altering the Act.
A central unanimous conclusion of the Lane Committee, after studying the working of the Act for two and a half years, was that the grounds set out in the Act should not be amended in a restrictive way. This Select Committee has unanimously produced an important set of recommendations, which should generally improve the working of the Act.
It is not for me to make recommendations to hon. Members as to how they should vote, but as my hon. Friends have asked me directly, and in order that hon. Members may discount any bias that I may have put into my speech—and as the right hon. Member for Wanstead felt that he should tell the House—speaking personally, I believe that what is now needed is not further examination of the provisions of the Act by the Select Committee, which is itself clearly divided, but a period of time to see exactly how its unanimous recommendations, which the Government are implementing, will work out in practice.
There is no secret about my views. Hon. Members can read them in the Select Committee's Report. I told the Select Committee that this was my view when I gave evidence to it on 3rd November 1975. I shall therefore, personally vote against the motion.
In putting down this motion and making time available for debate, the Government are fulfilling the pledge which I gave to the House last February and which was reiterated by my right hon. Friend in her statement to the House on 21st October, giving the House, in the light of the Committee's Reports already published, and of this debate, the opportunity to decide whether the Select Committee should be re-established. We are enabling every Member of the House, on a free vote—as is traditional in these matters—to exercise his or her individual judgment. That is, I think, what the House expects.

9.15 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I am glad to be called to speak following the contribution of the Minister of State,

who is responsible for the day-to-day working of the abortion legislation.
One feature that should be laid to the credit of the Select Committee is that it spurred the Department into action. I personally believe, as did the Committee, that the Department should have taken earlier action to deal with two factors—first the question of public anxiety, and secondly the Report of the Lane Committee. If that had happened earlier, I believe that there would have been no need to set up a Select Committee to examine the situation.
I accept the Minister's personal view that we should now have a period of calm. The 1967 Act brought great benefits to women in this country, and indeed to women in other countries whose legislators have followed the example of our legislation. Our legislation has been a great refuge for women in times of great trouble for themselves and their families. I believe that women have been under-represented in this House; they have been especially in the consideration of this legislation which mainly affects women.
It was by women that I was asked to help to sponsor the original Bill that led to the 1967 Act. That Act ran for three and a half years before the Lane Committee was set up. It looked at the operation of that Act and made far-reaching recommendations in a report published in 1974. On those recommendations there should have been more action.
The Lane Committee had recommended, among other things, that there should be no change in the grounds of abortion. Four years later the Select Committee took evidence from the medical profession and was given the same story: "Whatever you do, do not interfere with the grounds of abortion or restrict them." In plain language, some of them said "Stop mucking about with this law because we have had to adjust to it. We believe that, for the time being, it is the right measure. If you try to restrict it now, it will put doctors in a quandary and will drive people back to the back-street abortionists."
That is one of the things we wish to avoid. That is why I wish to see a period of calm reflection and an opportunity for the Minister to heed the "kick in the


pants" by the Select Committee and get on with the job of curbing abuses.
On 3rd November in the Select Committee I asked the Minister whether he now thought that he had all the powers required to deal with any abuses current or foreseen. His answer was:
Yes. We believe that we would, by accepting your own Report and by the action we have taken, have got a comprehensive package to stop as far as is possible abuse in the private sector over abortion.
That was the sector with which we were most concerned. I have disagreed with the Minister over many things, but on this matter I find myself in complete agreement with him.
There has been a welcome decline in the number of back-street abortions. It was these that worried people so much that they consented to the passage of the Abortion Bill in 1967. There was evidence from leading medical authorities that the emergency units set up in many of the main hospitals throughout the country had been stood down because the need for them to deal with the results of back-street abortion had lapsed and that, fortunately, they were able to deploy the staff for more useful purposes.
The view of the medical profession has quite clearly been that it does not want a change in the grounds of abortion.
I believe that many people who wish to see the Select Committee reestablished, with the widest possible terms—unconstrained, by the Long Title, from discussing any item at all in the whole area of abortion, as the hon. Member put it—should face the fact that its reestablishment will go on putting the public in doubt and keep the medical profession in doubt.
I do not believe that we should any longer give people the worry that the Government or this House will interfere or restrict the carefully devised grounds for abortion which are enshrined in the 1967 Act, recommended by the Lane Committee and endorsed by all the medical opinion that came before the Select Committee.
For that reason, I shall be among the many people in the House who will vote tonight against a reconstitution of the Select Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps before I call the next speaker, I should point out that there are eight hon. Members who would like to address the House before ten o'clock. Mr. Abse.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse (: There are two questions before the House. The first is whether there are still areas which require the adjudication or consideration of a Select Committee, or some other body. Secondly, if it is not to be a Select Committee, can we leave it to the Minister? Are there areas which genuinely need to be examined? If there are, should it be left to the House, through a Select Committee, or should it be left to the Department, at the Elephant and Castle?
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has mentioned three matters which particularly concern him, which have not been fully discussed by the Select Committee or are matters on which the Select Committee has not so far made adequate recommendations.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has categorised five issues. I shall run through them, and also some others that I think are quite clearly the types of matters that have to be dealt with, and upon which decisions have to be made.
First, there is the need, which was repeatedly stressed by the Department, to give statutory powers directly to license and control pregnancy advice bureaux, rather than—as we tried to do in our recommendations—give indirect powers, which really amount only to a holding measure.
All along, the Ministry has maintained that it requires statutory measures. That is why it supported a previous Private Member's Bill. I ask why it now believes—if it does—that the tentative, negative measures that we have suggested as a holding operation should be regarded as satisfactory. Are they satisfactory?
Secondly, there is a most important matter that has not been dealt with except very elliptically by the Minister—namely, the discrimination against doctors with conscientious objections to abortions. It is a weighty and serious matter. I suspect that it is a matter that


can be adequately dealt with and weighed only by a Select Committee.
Thirdly, there is the practice of some doctors to grant abortions virtually on request under the terms of section 1(a) of the original Act. Home Office witnesses suggested to the Committee that even a requirement to examine each patient individually and to consider each case individually would not necessarily eliminate the practice. It is a question of examination by Committee or by an individual to ascertain how we can remedy the problem.
The suggestion was made by the President of the Royal College in oral evidence, that the risk necessary to justify a legal abortion may not have been within the terms of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). We shall have to consider whether the matter can be confined so as to overcome the statistical problem mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
There is the possibility of collusion by doctors in approving abortions outside the spirit of the law through a mutual financial interest in the decision to terminate. That was attempted to be dealt with within the Bill of my hon. Friend. It has not been dealt with so far. It has not been touched upon in any of our recommendations, yet who can doubt that it is a matter upon which some judgment and guidance should be available to the public and the House?
There is the desirability or otherwise of statutory restrictions on the qualifications and experience of the medical practitioners undertaking or approving abortion operations. Should they have been in practice for a number of years? That is a matter upon which the BMA and the other medical organisations hold varying opinions. No decision has yet been taken, and judgment has not been weighed. The Select Committee believed all along that it would have ample time, and it has not engaged itself upon matters that are urgent and upon which unanimity is necessary.
We have heard once more of the confusion that exists about the need to bring the upper time limit for abortions into line with current world medical opinion, merely doing as we have recommended. The Minister has indicated that our

recommendation will be fulfilled. But we have not made a judgment on the important question of how late an abortion can take place. It has been indicated by the hon. Member for Essex,South-East that we have not dealt with the need that is generally regarded as necessary to provide anonymity for witnesses who have undergone abortions and who are involved in criminal proceedings. No judgment has been made. A problem faced by the police, as the evidence clearly revealed, is the virtual impossibility of proving lack of good faith on the part of the doctor. There is also the difficulty of gaining access to patients' registers at approved places.
Many matters have been raised in our discussions with the Home Office, but they have been left unattended. There is the important difficulty that is caused by the six-months' limitation within which prosecutions can be brought under the Abortion Act. There is the paltry minimum fine provided for breach of certification and notification regulations. We have not dealt with the issue. We have not engaged ourselves upon those matters. But they are not issues on which the Committee could not reach some consensus, given the good will
The point has been rightly made about the inconsistencies that exist between one area and another in terms of the availability of abortion under the National Health Service. It is an important issue. Has it arisen because in certain areas there are people who are being excessively restrictive, or has it come about because in some areas there are people like Professor Huntingford, who have taken the view, despite the will of the House, that there should be abortion on demand? Do both factors apply? Surely there is a necessity for some recommendation to come from a Committee which would lay down guidelines and amount to something more like a standard medical practice than exists today.
Again, there are the conditions relating to the licensing of clinics or blanket pregnancy advisory bureaux. These cannot be left now, as has been suggested, merely to men in the Elephant and Castle. I speak as a lawyer. Justice requires that there should be an appellate jurisdiction. Does this mean the creation of machinery by legislation? This has not been dealt with.
We should ask again—who can deny that it is not necessary to ask—whether there should not be a special screening of first-pregnancy abortions. We may argue how high is the incidence of risk, but everyone agrees that there is a significant risk when a first pregnancy is aborted. All the medical evidence, including that from Russia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in recent months, indicates that this is not a matter to be put on one side, and that it can have very serious consequences. I know of nothing more dangerous and sad than that an ill-considered decision taken by a woman when she is young can mean that she is rendered sterile, and never able to have the blessings of parenthood. I know there are women who put forward the view that motherhood is a curse and not a blessing, but that is not the view held by the majority of women in this country. I believe that it is necessary that the House should know the evidence and, in the light of the evidence that the Select Committee can collect, be able to make its own decision whether we should give, in some form, special consideration to a woman in that position.
This becomes more important when we find that since we have reported the suggestion has been made—it has not come from the Committee and has not been examined by the Committee—that there should be day clinics for what have been pejoratively described as "lunch-time" abortions, and that the Ministry, without and review by the Select Committee, will give these experiments into the hands of so-called charities. I say "so-called" charities, because the evidence that came before the Committee showed that the doctors who work for these charities, as abortionists, are capable of earning £25,000 a year. That is a charity, and it is one of the two charities to which the Minister is prepared to give this experiment, which may have merit and which may have to be done, but which, if it were done, I should prefer to see done in the National Health Service than by a charity of this kind.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that any new techniques introduced should be first brought to this inexpert Committee for vetting before the Minister grants approval for certain respected charitable clinics—I repeat,

"charitable clinics"—to carry out now what they have been doing on a 12-months' experimental basis?

Mr. Abse: All I am saying is that if right hon. and hon. Members will look at the evidence they will find that it is there, both before the Lane Committee and before the Select Committee.

Mrs. Renée Short: It is not there.

Mr. Abse: The figures are there. Well over 90 per cent. of these charities give abortions to those who go to them. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) believes in abortion on request, and it may be that that is a view which can be respectably argued. But it is not the law of the land. It is not what this House has passed.
I have considerable misgivings when I find that this new and serious experiment, on which there are arguments between the so-called charities as to which is the right technique, should be given to what is effectively the private sector. It is to be done without any surveillance. This is the first real initiative to have come from the Department other than as a result of repeated promptings by way of questions, motions or requests from Select Committees.
If I look back upon the history of the workings of this Act I realise that it is only as a result of pressure from this House, following what has happened outside, that any changes have come about. The truth is that the Department, in successive Administrations, has limped and lagged behind the expression of opinion in this House. At the beginning we were told, in the memorandum presented to the Select Committee by the Department, that the Department's view was that it had limited powers. It felt that it could do nothing to control any clinic other than by way of approving its physical accoutrements. Provided that, physically, it had the necessary equipment to be classified as a nursing home, nothing more could be done. In its evidence the Department made it clear that it believed it could not go further.
It took years before the Department took the appropriate legal advice which eventually brought it to the conclusion that it could take action as far-reaching as that now to be implemented by the


Minister on the recommendation of the Select Committee. It would be curious if the House were now asked to trust the men at the Elephant and Castle. If they came here with a good record, having shown themselves ready to take the initiative, that would be a heavy argument. But the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has expressed his opinion of how febrile the activities of the men at the Department have been for years. Is he now asking us to place all confidence in the Department? Ministers come and go, but the men at the Department continue. The House would be wrong if, even with the best will in the world, it decided to put this matter to rest in the cradle inside the Elephant and Castle.
The truth is that however we interpret the undertaking given by the Minister on behalf of the Government—whatever casuistry may be attempted to be brought in to suggest that a commitment eras not given to the House and the country that the Select Committee would have the full opportunity to review matters and continue its work in another Session—the undertaking was given. I saw that this would happen, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok. We asked for an undertaking from the Government when we agreed that we would support the idea that the Bill should go to the Select Committee. We anticipated the situation. We knew that if the House was to do justice to this issue we would have to carry on as a Committee.
We asked for the undertaking and it was given in specific terms. We sometimes have to explain to people outside that this is a pluralist society and that no one can have his own way totally on an issue of this kind, in this highly opinionated society. We who have taken people with us would be placed in a great difficulty. It would be regarded as a betrayal, even if that were not intended, if we decided to shirk the issue and pass it back to the Ministry. I hope that as a matter of political wisdom my hon. Friends will join with me. In my view it is hon. Members on the Labour Benches who have a responsibility, because the Government will be regarded by many as having given an undertaking.
I do not understand what the fear is. The Select Committee will try to reach unanimity. Every sensible man or woman

knows that what we are aiming at is a consensus that will stretch out its hand to women in trouble while at the same time striving to maintain the sanctity of life and a cessation of the corrosion of our values. That is the aim, and it is difficult, but surely possible, for legislators to make the attempt.
I hope that the House will enable us to have another look at the possibilities which I hope will bring about a consensus and a lasting healing—not a sense of frustration or betrayal—because that is what every sensible man and woman wants.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: We are asked to approve the setting up of a Select Committee to consider matters contained in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to amend the Abortion Act 1967. We have already had the benefit of three years of inquiry by the Lane Committee into the workings of the 1967 Act. There has been a year's deliberation by the Select Committee which is the subject of the motion. I agree with the Minister of State that it is time that we allowed this matter to settle down and for the medical profession to operate the Bill with any additional guidance which it receives from the Minister from time to time.
Until the passing of the 1967 Act there had been no legislation on this subject since 1861. The battle lasted for over 100 years and was eventually won by those in favour of reform. However, the opposers of the 1967 Act will not accept defeat and, therefore, they have proposed the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
I was asked to take an interest in the proposal that the Select Committee should be reconstituted, and I had so many letters couched in exactly the same phraseology that I became suspicious. They all asked that the Select Committee should be set up with exactly the same constitution. I wondered what was so special about the Committee that it should not be altered to the extent of one or perhaps two members. I should have thought that some hon. Members were perhaps tired of discussing the subject for a year and would wish to be relieved of their membership of the Committee.
I therefore considered the constitution of the Select Committee, and I discovered


that only four of its 15 members were women. Abortion is a matter of vital importance to women. I should have thought that half the members of the Committee at least should be women instead of barely one-third. After all, half of the population in this country are women.
The Committee of Selection bears a large measure of responsibility for the way in which the Select Committee was constituted. That is one reason why I would not vote for the Committee to be set up: it is wrongly constituted. That is my greatest criticism of the motion.
Religion and morality have been brought into the debate. One or two hon. Members have declared their religious affiliations.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Leave out the question of morality.

Mr. Drayson: I should like to do so, but it has been introduced.
The composition of the Select Committee is unsatisfactory and biased on religious grounds. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I shall not say why. Hon. Members can refer to the book in the Library setting out the religious affiliations of hon. Members. They can decide whether the bias against women in the composition of the Committee also applies to the question of religious denominations.
There is far too much dogma on this question. I should like to see a little more compassion and humility for women confronted with unwanted pregnancies, especially against the background of the medical and scientific progress of recent years. Is it not possible that the hand of the Almighty guided those who developed the pill and those who have now perfected quick and safe methods of abortion?
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her recent moves in connection with same-day abortions by the vacuum aspiration method. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) told us about the increase in juvenile abortions, of girls under the age of 16. I look forward to the time when this apparatus is standard equipment in the first-aid centres of all our large comprehensive schools——

Sir Bernard Braine: Absolutely disgraceful!

Mr. Drayson: —just as I look forward to the time when we shall have abortion on demand.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Are you serious?

Mr. Drayson: Of course I am serious. I said that I look forward to the time. We should be looking forward in this debate, not back over the last 100 years. I would go even further. When the abortions take place, if they have to, they should be entirely at the wish of the young person concerned without any parental interference. This is a decision that they should be allowed to make for themselves.
We have heard a good deal about whether the period should be reduced from 24 to 20 weeks. I see developing in the correspondence that I have received an unhealthy cult which I can only refer to as the adoration of the foetus. It is time that we put that whole matter into perspective.
In this debate, which will end with a free vote, I have said what I sincerely feel about this subject, just as many of my hon. Friends have expressed their points of view. I was glad when the 1967 Act was passed. I agree that it wants watching, but I see developments not in the way of restricting its activities but in broadening them until we reach a time when women will be in control of their own destiny, when any uncertainty which exists in the Act is removed and the medical profession can settle down to a long period of useful work under that Act.

9.48 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: The House has heard a number of emotional speeches tonight from those who are known to be anti-abortion, deliberately attempting to mislead right hon. and hon. Members about the evidence taken by the Select Committee. Those hon. Members who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will understand how some of the witnesses before the Committee felt when they realised that there were more words from him in attempts to persuade them to accept his view than they were allowed in putting their views.
I am concerned that so little regard has been paid to the needs of women who are in difficulty through having too many pregnancies, for whatever reason, and who are entitled under the law as it is—I defend the 1967 Act, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool wants to put into my mouth—but who are refused a legal termination of pregnancy.
It so happens that the figures that were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Hansard a week ago indicate the unfairness of the way in which the Act operates. This is because of the abuse of the conscience clause which is written into it.
In the West Midlands the women have the lowest number of abortions per 100 live births. The figure in the West Midlands is 3·7 per 100 live births. That is a scandalous situation. Yet we find that, according to the number of abortions per thousand women in the childbearing age from 16 to 49, taken according to residence in hospital areas, the highest number of abortions, apart from those in the London area, is carried out in the West Midlands. By contrast, in the North, which includes the old Newcastle Regional Hospital Board area, there is the highest number of abortions in the National Health Service but the lowest number per thousand women of child-bearing age.
The conclusions are clear. The fact that there is an area in which the availability of abortion is restricted because of the conscience clause, about which so many anti-abortionists have made a great deal of play tonight, does not prevent women from seeking and obtaining terminations under the law. They are precisely the women who are driven to the private sector. That is another issue about which many anti-abortionists have made a great deal of weather.
Fewer women have had abortions in areas where abortions are available under the National Health Service than in areas where abortions are restricted under the National Health Service. A clear lesson is to be learnt from this. It so happens that, in areas where the consultants have a reasonable view towards pregnant women, they also have a reasonable view towards the availability of contraceptives, and contraceptives are made freely available by them in co-operation with health visitors and the social services. Very few

anti-abortionists have asked that contraceptives should be made more freely available. They want it all ways and will never be satisfied. They ask for the Select Committee to be set up again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said, the Select Committee will have the contrary aim and objective to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. It will seek to undermine the 1967 Act because the Bill is a wrecking Bill. The Committee has a built-in majority, as the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) said, of those who are fundamentally opposed to the 1967 Act. Their aim and objective has always been to undermine that Act. They do not mind what will happen to the unfortunate women who now have a legal right under the Act to the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.
We have heard a great deal, again from the anti-abortionists, about the need to take account of public opinion. What public opinion is it of which they want us to take account? Even before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) introduced his Bill there was a determined, well-organised and well-financed campaign against the 1967 Act by a minority. That minority has written letters, sent deputations and held demonstrations in London. Its supporters have come to London in their coach-loads. However, the Committee has also taken evidence from a united medical profession—from general practitioners to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the men who operate the 1967 Act. Without exception, all have condemned the Bill. Without exception, all have said that they want the Act to remain unamended.
In the face of that united medical opinion, what have we got? The anti-abortionists on both sides of the House—even the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), forgetting what his leader said yesterday about choice—say that women shall not have the choice, even though they are entitled to it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As there may be a number of hon. Members who were not present to hear what I said, I should like to say that I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that I said it was always a question of balance and that a woman


did not have the unfettered choice, because a child has a right to live. This is a question of balance, and that is what I said.

Mrs. Short: The balance, however, is provided for very clearly in the Act, because no woman in Britain gets abortion on demand under that Act. Let us be absolutely clear about that. She first has to be referred by her general practitioner to the consultant gynaecologist in the hospital, and two doctors have to approve the operation. That is a fact. It is irrefutable. The right hon. Gentleman really needs to understand what exactly his position is. I think that he is very confused.
We have the united expression of medical opinion in Britain. On any other issue I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House to indicate where he would oppose such united medical opinion. Right hon. and hon. Members would not dare, and yet on this issue they have the temerity, because it is something that affects women and not men, to put themselves up against the united, skilled, expert opinion in Britain. They are very brave men indeed.
I am absolutely sure that had our reproductive processes been distributed differently, had it been men who became pregnant, there would have been a free

availability of abortion for men hundreds of years ago—in fact, the availability that existed for women up to 1803. That was changed not for any spurious regard for any unripe foetus. But for the danger to women who were undergoing very dangerous operations to rid themselves of unripe foetuses, it would never have been changed.

We have the united medical opinion. I believe that public opinion polls show that for the mass of people in Britain, including the Methodist Church, the Liverpool Diocesan Conference and the Social Board of Responsibility—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred, in the current issue of the Crucible—there has been a dramatic shift of opinion the last decade since we passed the Act.

I call upon the House to vote against the appointment of the Select Committee and to stand behind public opinion and medical opinion in this country.

Mr. Abse: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the whole motion as it stands on the Order Paper.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 172.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[10 00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchanan, Richard
Doig, Peter


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Arnold, Tom
Canavan, Dennis
Dunn, James A.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Mark
Dunnett, Jack


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Durant, Tony


Awdry, Daniel
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eadie, Alex


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Elliott, Sir William


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
English, Michael


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Biffen, John
Clemitson, Ivor
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Cohen, Stanley
Farr, John


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John H.
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.


Boardman, H.
Cormack, Patrick
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bottomley, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crawford, Douglas
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brittan, Leon
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fox, Marcus


Brotherton, Michael
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Delargy, Hugh
Fry, Peter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dempsey, James
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)




Ginsburg, David
MacCormick, Iain
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert
Roper, John


Goodhart, Philip
McElhone, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Neil
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor
Rowlands, Ted


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mackintosh. John P.
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Graham, Ted
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shersby, Michael


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Silvester, Fred


Griffiths, Eldon
McNamara, Kevin
Sims, Roger


Grocott, Bruce
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, Sir John
Mahon, Simon
Small, William


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hannam, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Speed, Keith


Hardy, Peter
Mather, Carol
Spriggs, Leslie


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stanley, John


Henderson, Douglas
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hicks, Robert
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Higgins, Terence L.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Horam, John
Mills, Peter
Stott, Roger


Hordern, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moate, Roger
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Howell, David (Guildford)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hunter, Adam
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hurd, Douglas
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Geraint
Thompson, George


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tierney, Sydney


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tomney, Frank


James, David
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tuck, Raphael


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Newton, Tony
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Noble, Mike
Wakeham, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Nott, John
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric 
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
O'Halloran, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Walters, Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Watkinson, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Padley, Walter
Weatherill, Bernard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wells, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil
White, James (Pollok)


Lamond, James
Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitehead, Phillip


Lamont, Norman
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lane, David
Pendry, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Perry, Ernest
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lawrence, Ivan
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lawson, Nigel
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Raison, Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Woodall, Alec


Lloyd, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woof, Robert


Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Luce, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rifkind, Malcolm



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Ian Campbell and



Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Anthony Fell.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, Alf
Booth, Albert


Ashton, Joe
Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, Norman
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buck, Antony







Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parker, John


Carter, Ray
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurie


Cartwright, John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Phipps, Dr Colin


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cockcroft, John
Heffter, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Holland, Philip
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Hooley, Frank
Rathbone, Tim


Concannon, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Huckfield, Les
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Corbett, Robin
Hunt, John
Rooker, J. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) 
Rose, Paul B.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Janner, Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Spence, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stoddart, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Ennals, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Temple-Morris, Peter


Evans, John (Newton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tomlinson, John


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ward, Michael


Freud, Clement
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Watt, Hamish


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molloy, William
Weetch, Ken


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


George, Bruce
Nelson, Anthony
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Dr John
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Golding, John
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ovenden, John



Grant, John (Islington C)
Owen, Dr David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grylls, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Mrs. Joyce Butler and



Park, George
Sir George Sinclair.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the matters contained in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill committed to a Select Committee in the last Session of Parliament:

That the Committee do consist of Fifteen Members:

That Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Anthony Fell, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. M. S. Miller, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James White, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Committee:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:

That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:

That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill in the last Session of Parliament, together with Memoranda laid before them, be referred to the Committee.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you the important question of just what Question the House has just decided? As I understand the situation, what the House has just passed is merely the motion
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the matters contained in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill committed to a Select Committee in the last Session of Parliament
and not the remainder of the words which appear on the Order Paper in the separate motions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was at great pains to say to the House that I was putting the whole of the motion. I put it within the hearing of the House, and that is what the House has decided upon.

Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, was at great pains to take note of the words you said. Indeed, I wrote down your words which were "I shall put the whole motion"—"motion" in the singular. You then said "The Question is, That the motion"—in the singular—"is as it stands on the Order Paper".
I do not claim to be expert in these matters, but, as I understand it, the separate paragraphs, if I may so call them, which appear on the Order Paper on these occasions are technically separate motions and technically, therefore, separate Questions. It is not only known to the House but is perfectly common for the House to take separate votes and sometimes to pass the setting up of a Committee but then, on a separate Question, to consider the composition of the Committee.
I suggest to you for your consideration that technically the House has had before it one motion and one Question which it has now decided and which is contained in the first two lines which appear on the Order Paper under the name Government Deputy Chief Whip. If the House wanted to address itself in one vote to all six motions before the House,

it would have been necessary for that to be made absolutely clear to the House by saying that the House was to consider together the six motions standing in the name of the Government Deputy Chief Whip and to have one vote upon them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time when the hon. Gentleman should have raised this question, if he desired a number of votes, was when I said to the House that I was going to put the whole motion. My ruling is that I have submitted the whole of the motion as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question seems to resolve itself into this. Are all the lines appearing under the heading "Abortion" on the Order Paper one motion or six motions? According to "Erskine May" and to the expertise of the House, if they are one motion my point falls. If, however, they are six motions, I suggest that, by saying as you did that you were putting the whole motion to the House, that could only mean the first motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I think that, if he had it in mind, I cannot for the life of me understand why he did not rise in his place when I put the Question. I have given my ruling and I fear that that must be the end of the matter.

COMMUNITY LAND

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 19), dated 8th January 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to take at the same time the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Land (Statutory Undertakers) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 18), dated 8th January 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be annulled.

Mr. Page: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Both these Orders—[Interruption]—deal with exemptions from the effects—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly? The noise is very unfair to the right hon. Gentleman who is trying to address the House.

Mr. Page: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Both these Orders deal with exemptions from the effects of the Community Land Act in various ways. In order to appreciate the Orders, and for me to ask certain questions on them, one has to look at some of the definitions.
First, in the Act the phrase "material interest" is defined as meaning the freehold or the leasehold with seven years to run. Then one goes on to the definition of "outstanding material interests". That is said in the Act to be one which is not owned by certain authorities, or
is of a description specified in an order made…by the Secretary of State.
The first of the two Orders before us, No. 19, is such an Order.
At some future date, which we have come to know as the second appointed day, it will be the duty of the local authorities to acquire all outstanding material interests as long as they are needed for the purpose of designated relevant development. Therefore, none of the land belonging to the 12 bodies named in the first Order will be acquired

by the local authorities—or, rather the local authorities will have no duty to acquire the land.
Then we come to the four bodies named in the second Order, No. 18. One has to go a step further and see that it is only the operational land of the bodies so named—the statutory undertakers—which will be exempt from acquisition or from the duty to acquire under the Act.
Therefore, it is necessary again to look at the definition in the Act of statutory undertakers. They are
persons authorised by an enactment to carry on
any activity set out in Section 5 of the Community Land Act which deals with those undertakings which are operating railways, tramways, road transport, inland navigation, ports, harbours and so on, and other certain named bodies such as the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Coal Board and the Post Office. Those are the statutory undertakers, except that there is added to those
any other authority, body or undertakers specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
Indeed, we have that Order before us tonight specifying four bodies. It is Order No. 18. But under the Act it is only operational land of the statutory undertakers which comes within that which has to be acquired by the local authorities.
Operational land is again defined in Section 5 of the Act. That definition applies only to the statutory undertakers which are identified in Section 5(1), paragraphs (a) and (b). The definition as I read it does not apply to statutory undertakers which are named in an Order of this sort before the House tonight. That is to say, a definition of operational land as given in the Community Land Act does not apply to the four authorities named in Order No. 18 because the Act says that, as far as they are concerned, operational land shall be that which is defined in the Order naming them as statutory undertakers.
I refer the Minister to Section 5(3) of the Act:
In relation to any statutory undertakers specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State and the


appropriate Minister acting jointly, subsection (2) above"—
that is, the subsection defining operational land—
shall not apply and in this Act' operational land' shall have the meaning given by the order as respects those undertakers".
I have searched Order No. 18 and I can find no definition there of operational land. I wonder whether the Minister has slipped up and has omitted some necessary provision in this Order, or do we find this definition of operational land for these four new statutory undertakers somewhere else? That is my first question.
This is important, because with reference to other sections of the Act and other powers—for example, Section 22—in respect of what land or property of these four bodies can planning permission be suspended? When, under Section 41, does the special parliamentary procedure apply to their acquisition of land? When is the local authority's right as expressed in Schedule 4 modified in favour of these bodies? It depends on the definition of operational land, which is missing from the Order.
Order No. 19 sets out the 12 bodies in respect of whose interests in land there shall not apply the definition of outstanding material interests, and, therefore, those interests will be exempt from acquisition or from the duty to acquire by local authorities. They are a mixed bunch. How are these 12 chosen? I am sorry if that sounds rather biblical, but they are a puzzling dozen and I cannot imagine how they were chosen. Why do some appear in Order No. 19 as exempt by means of the definition of outstanding material interest while others appear in Order No. 18 as the new statutory undertakers?
Why is the Commission for New Towns not a statutory undertaker and listed in Order No. 19 when the Independent Broadcasting Authority is a statutory undertaker and is put in Order No. 18? There does not seem to be any logic. Why is the Highlands and Islands Development Board listed in Order No. 19 when it is surely one of the authorities within Section 5
for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power"?

Why do the Scottish Development Agency and Welsh Development Agency appear in two Orders—namely, Order No. 19 and a draft Order which the House approved only a few nights ago, an Order to the effect that property owned by these Agencies is excepted development?
As all of us who served in Committee on the Community Land Bill know that Ministers tried to make it as simple a measure as possible by reserving the guts of the Bill to subsequent Orders. By "guts of the Bill" I mean the whole land municipalisation scheme. We were told that various matters were to be left to subsequent Orders and that everything would be beautifully sorted out. We have seen a process of exemption. We are finding, thank heavens, that by these Orders more and more land is slipping through the fingers of the dead hand of the land municipalisation scheme.
The process of exemption started under the Bill when the single dwelling-house was exempted. Then we had the Schedule I exempt development and the statutory undertakers specified in the Act, followed by the charities and the excepted classes by Order. Tonight we have the statutory undertakers by Order and the non-outstanding material interests. There are over half a dozen different classes of bodies, interests or land which are exempt from the Act. Of course, we welcome that. The more we exempt the better, but it seems a little unfair on those who are left within the Act and who have to suffer the acquisition of their land.
The half dozen or so exemptions have been established for various reasons and in respect of various and different conditions. Not one of the bodies mentioned in the Orders has any more moral right to be exempt than has a private developer. This is where the Orders show up the fallacies and faults of the Act. There might be some argument for exempting public bodies from the development land tax on the ground that they do not make profits. Perhaps it is thought that the private developer who makes profits should be taxed—I can understand that argument—but there is no logical or moral argument that we must take away a private individual's land but not the land of a nationalised industry.
Great confusion is bound to arise in land municipalisation schemes. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up the anomalies under these Orders, because if we are to have more and more such Orders we shall need to have behind them some logic so that we may understand the reasons for exemptions and be able to study them fully. As they are now, they are muddled and cross-fertilised and we are left in confusion.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: At the risk of wearying the House, I wish to declare my interest as a director of a house-building company.
I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The Order deals with a privileged list of organisations. Section 18(1) of the Community Land Act 1975 gives power to designate what is to be relevant development in the area of every county authority—which is the key to deciding which land shall be acquired by either the county council or the district council, usually by compulsory purchase, and initially at only 20 per cent. of its real value, according to current use value only.
Under Section 18(3) the authorities concerned are to
arrange between them for all outstanding material interests in land which is needed for the purposes of designated relevant development to be acquired by one of those authorities"—
or, to put it simply, to decide who grabs what, subject to the completely inadequate restrictions in Section 18(4).
Section 6 defines a material interest as meaning freehold land or a lease with at least seven years unexpired, and Section 4 defines material interests which are not to be treated as outstanding. It is characteristic of this unhappy Act that Section 4 is meaningless until one reads Section 6, which is meaningless until one reads Section 18, and so on. If the intention of the Minister is to encourage insomnia among practitioners or to frustrate the energy conservation programme by ensuring the burning of more midnight oil, he will at least be successful in that.
Under Section 4 (1)(c) the Secretary of State is given blanket powers—powers which under the Act are the deplorable norm—to exempt further land from the acquisition power of local authorities. That is what the Order does, and there

are some names in it which are not obviously appropriate and some which should have been in the Act. Since Section 4(1)(a) lists a new town authority as being exempt, I can only assume that it was sloppy drafting which requires us to have the Commission for New Towns in the Order.
I agree with the inclusion of registered housing associations, but may we have an assurance that land will not be taken from an association which has applied for registration but has not yet been granted it? Similarly, where a housing association has lodged an appeal against expulsion from the register to the High Court under Section 15(3) of the 1974 Housing Act, I assume that its land will still be protected by virtue of Section 15(4), which says that its name remains on the register until the appeal is determined.
I am not very happy about the exclusion of unregistered self-build societies. Section 120 of the Housing Act 1974 amends Section 341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 so as to give self-build societies tax exemption for the rent payable by their members. Although I am a builder, I do not take a narrow view of self-build groups. I think they have a useful role to play in a minor key, provided that their members are properly trained to do the building work and they carry it out themselves rather than subcontract it and thus act as clients rather than as self-builders.
I am a little concerned at the small amount of information available to the Secretary of State about these bodies which are now to receive tax relief and to have the privilege of not having their land within the scheme. On 8th July 1974 I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many self-build-houses had been constructed in the last 10 years. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment replied:
I regret the information is not available in the form requested. I estimate that the total number of dwellings under construction by self-build societies in Great Britain is less than 2,000."—[Official Report, 8th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 377.]
On 22nd January 1975, by which time the new fiscal advantages to self-build groups had become law under the 1974 Housing Act, it seemed to me that the public interest required rather more information than was given by that answer.


I therefore asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
what sources of statistical information are available to him about the number of houses constructed by self-build groups and the loans available to them from public funds; and what steps he is taking to improve them, so as to he able to monitor progress in this regard more satisfactorily in the light of the Housing Act 1974".
Although the then Under-Secretary gave me the most courteous reply, it was not very informative. He said:
No entirely satisfactory sources of information exist. The Annual Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies gives the numbers of self-build societies registered, and those removed from the register on completion or abandonment of their schemes, together with other information including the number of members and total loans outstanding, whether public or private. This information is compiled from audited financial returns made by the societies. Societies applying for approval under Section 120 of the Housing Act 1974 will be asked how many dwellings they intend to construct, and local authorities and the Housing Corporation will be asked to notify the Department of the amounts of any loans they make to self-build societies."—[Official Report, 22nd January, 1975; Vol. 884, c. 409.]
I hope we shall have reassurance from Ministers that more will be done in future to monitor the output and use of land by self-build groups, in the light of this Order, than has been the case in the past.
Concerning the Community Land (Statutory Undertakers) Order, as a former member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is the most distinguished Chairman, I must protest at the completely inadequate explanatory note to the Order. One of the purposes of an explanatory note is presumably to give a note of explanation, but this note is completely meaningless without detailed reference to the wording of the Community Land Act.
Since we are to have many more Orders under the Act, I hope the Minister will make sure that something better is done in the future, particularly as the explanatory note to the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order is perfectly satisfactory.
Here again, the purpose of the Order is to protect the operational land of the four organisations named from compulsory acquisition under Section 18(3) of the Community Land Act. Once again, one has to jump around the pages of the

Act like a zombie and go back from Section 18(4)(d) to Section 5(1)(c), which gives the Secretary of State power to list by order any statutory undertakers whom he had forgotten when he drafted the list in Section 5(1)(a) and Section 5(1)(b).
I see no reason at all why the BBC and the IBA should be on the list. As a matter of practicality, is any of their land actually threatened by acquisition? Could any local authority afford to acquire it? Are we really expected to believe that the avaricious eyes of county councils are being placed on remote transmitter stations in the middle of nowhere or on juicy office blocks in the middle of large cities—blocks which by definition are occupied, since if they were not they would be gobbled up by the right hon. Gentleman under Part IV of the Act?
As for the Atomic Energy Authority, it is difficult to believe that any local authority would want to acquire its land or that people would be very keen to live there if an authority acquired it, especially if it were the site of nuclear energy experiments. Council houses in a road called Plutonium Avenue might be a little difficult to let, even to the most desperate tenants on the housing list.
We ought not to waste paper in printing Orders which are only common sense. No local authority in its right mind would acquire such land. There is already enough paper emanating from the Department of the Environment as a result of this unhappy Act without adding uselessly to it. I commend the motion to the House.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for bringing his great knowledge and intellectual appreciation to the Orders now before the House. My concern is to ask the Minister for further information about the general interests of the countryside.
I think that as a charity the National Trust is included in the organisations which are excluded from the operation of the Community Land Act. I want to take the Minister a little further, however, and ask him whether land in the national parks can be acquired under the Act by local authorities. With regard to the National Trust itself, what is the position about dedicated land and schemes of


management of land handled by the National Trust?
What is the position of the Forestry Commission with regard to land which is either dedicated to it for a period of years or for which there is a managing scheme which the Commission undertakes for hardwood or softwood plantings?
Then there are country houses and their availability to the public under various schemes. Are they still at risk under the terms of the Community Land Act? Do their owners, managers or trustees need to keep looking over their shoulders about the intentions of the local authorities, or can they rest secure in the knowledge that their interests will be properly protected? This applies to the whole subject of countryside interests, and the Minister will know that one of the Select Committees is looking into national parks and the countryside generally. There is need of reassurance in this respect.
A final area of interest concerns land owned by the regional water authorities. What is the position of these statutory undertakings? I have not seen their titles mentioned in any Statutory Instruments, and I should welcome the Minister's observations.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I want to ask the Minister to give us some justification for the inclusion of the British Steel Corporation in Statutory Instrument No. 18. It seems to me that, as the House will be considering a profusion of Bills which extend the power and influence of the nationalised industries and also, in the West Midlands County Council Bill, the power and influence of local authorities, it is vital that nationalised industries are not given a uniquely privileged position in relation to private industry.
One of the features which those in private industry are most concerned about in this legislation is the unnecessary fetter on their right to build on their own land, on their right to extend their operations and, hopefully, when this Government have left office, on their right to increase investment to provide employment for the many people at present unemployed.
The proposal in this Order is to give a privileged position to the BSC. In many respects the Corporation is already competing with a number of private producers of steel. Those private producers are in a very difficult position, and, if their position is further undermined because they cannot expand their plant, they cannot buy a bit of land and they cannot build a factory when the BSC has a privileged position in relation to the bureaucracy, once again we shall see that by a subterfuge, by a by-way, the Government are undermining the position of private industry.
I speak as one who represents a constituency which is vitally concerned both with the production of steel and with the manufacture of parts from the steel industry. It is vital that, if we are to have a large monopoly producer of steel like the BSC, which in some respects, in the production of smaller types of steel, competes with private producers, competition should be fair and on an equal basis. I see no reason why the British Steel Corporation should be given a privileged position as against many private producers of limited types of steel who are in a difficult position.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising this debate and for the usual eloquent and learned way in which he put his case. I confess to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that my gratitude was a little conditioned by a feeling of déjà vu, because most hon. Members who are here were present in the Chamber and in Committee at far less civilised hours than this when we were discussing many of the issues about which we are concerned tonight.
Hon. Members will recall that during the Committee's deliberations on this part of the Act the Minister for Planning and Local Government referred to the White Paper which foreshadowed the Act and to the reference in it to statutory undertakers and comparable bodies being able to acquire development land needed for their statutory functions without the intervention of local authorities. He said then, and I am sure hon. Members will agree, that such an arrangement made good, common sense. The right hon. Member for Crosby intimated this in his speech.


Conservative Members, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, expressed concern about this being a possible way of driving a coach and horses through the Act since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could exempt what were called all sorts of public bodies under this provision without any control by the House.
References were made to bodies listed as public bodies under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act, to the Housing Corporation, the co-operative movement, the White Fish Authority and many others besides. The Orders which we have produced show quite clearly that these are not, and never were, intended to drive a coach and horses through the Act. One could hardly get a pony and trap through the Act with these Orders.
Let me explain the purpose of the Orders. The White Paper indicated that statutory undertakers and some comparable bodies would be able to acquire and develop land needed for their statutory functions without the intervention of local authorities under the scheme. In Section 5 (1) of the Act we define three categories of statutory undertakers for the purpose of the Act. Section 5(1)(a) imported a definition of statutory undertakers from the Town and Country Planning Acts concerning, among others, persons authorised to carry on
any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water.
Section 5(1)(b) referred to certain named bodies—the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Coal Board, the Post Office and others—which, although not covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts, have been given a status as statutory undertakers for the purpose of this Act and other legislation.
It is Section 5(1)(c) that concerns us tonight. Under it the Community Land (Statutory Undertakers) Order has been made. That section allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to specify by order other bodies as statutory undertakers for the purpose of the Act. The effect of being specified in the Order is to exempt the named body by virtue of Section 18(4)(d) from any duty on the part of a local authority to acquire its operational land. It also, by virtue of Section 28(8)(b), exempts them from the

suspension of planning permission for the development of such land.
Another method of achieving the same objectives is for the Secretary of State to specify material interests in land which are not to be treated as outstanding interests under powers granted by Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Since under Section 18(3) of the Act the acquisition duty of authorities applies only to outstanding material interests, the interests specified in the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order are thus also outside the scheme. There is similarly exemption from the suspension of planning permission by virtue of Section 22(8)(a). If all the material interests in the land are owned by a body specified in the Order or are otherwise to be treated as not outstanding, a planning permission for the development of the land cannot then he suspended.
I apologise for being so technical, but this is a very technical matter. May I briefly explain the reasons for the selection of the specified bodies.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Before the hon. Gentleman does that, I wonder whether he would touch on a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). My right hon. Friend pointed out that in the Order relating to outstanding material interests there is reference to the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. The hon. Gentleman has kindly advised us that the making of the Order means that these Agencies will get the protection given by the exemption from the duty to acquire by Section 18(3). They will get the benefit of the exemptions to the suspension of their planning permission by the operation of Section 22. May I add a further point: they will get protection from the modification of the compulsory purchase powers under the Fourth Schedule.
However, those three benefits derived by those two Agencies, by being included in the Order, are also benefits which the Minister stated the other day when he was dealing with the excepted development regulations, because excepted development in itself gives the same benefits as regards Sections 18 and 22 and the Fourth Schedule. These Agencies appear in the outstanding material in-


terests Order and in the excepted development regulations, which we approved the other day. There seems to be no distinction, however, between the two situations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby stated, this can only confuse people when they have to try to interpret the legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would direct his mind to that matter.

Mr. Oakes: I proposed to direct my mind to it later, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I shall deal with it now.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies appear in both the outstanding material interests Order and in the excepted development Regulations. The answer is that these Agencies need to be in the outstanding material interests Order so that land which they own will not be treated as outstanding when they wish to develop that land themselves. Developments on land which they own but of which they have disposed a material interest is included in the exempted development Regulations so that, for example, lessees of the Agency will be able to carry out the development for which the Agencies have disposed the land without local authorities being under a duty to acquire that land. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government discussed this matter before the House a week ago tonight when the exempted development Regulations were debated and he agreed to reply to this point. I hope I have explained why the Development Agencies are included in the Order.

Mr. Graham Page: We are grateful to have that explanation, but it leads to another question. If a private developer has obtained from the Scottish Development Agency an interest over seven years, is his leasehold interest already excepted from the duty of acquisition by the local authorities?

Mr. Oakes: The right hon. Gentleman springs that question on me. That would not necessarily follow from what I have said, but I will look into it and reply to him. I think that the point is a highly technical one, concerned particularly with the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. So it is fair to

say that I shall reply to him in that form. I think that it will not be so.

Mr. Graham Page: If I may relieve the hon. Gentleman of replying for Scotland and Wales, while he is perhaps getting that advice I would point out that he has not answered a rather important question I put to him about the definition of the operational land of the four authorities included in the Order relating to the four authorities. It seems that under Section 5(4) he should have defined the operational land of those four authorities.

Mr. Oakes: There are a number of matters on which I have not yet replied because I have been interrupted on this matter. On the last point about the Development Agencies, the development—not the lease itself—is excepted under the Order.
I should like to come on to some of the reasons for selecting these specific bodies. The statutory undertakers Order is used to cover bodies which may sensibly be regarded as statutory undertakers. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is a vital contributor to the country's energy supply and is clearly analogous to the gas and electricity industries. The British Steel Corporation is the only nationalised industry which is not already a statutory undertaker. The BBC and the IBA operate under statutory powers and duties, providing a service akin to that provided by a public utility and it is right, I believe, to treat them as statutory undertakers.
The outstanding material interests Order, by contrast, covers bodies whose functions are concerned with the provision of housing or sites for development or are akin to those of a local authority or a new town development corporation, and it is consistent with the scheme that all their land should be outside the scheme proper.
I do not propose to go in detail through the organisations——

Mr. Bugden: The Minister has not answered the point that I tried to make.

Mr. Oakes: I have not had a chance yet.

Mr. Bugden: I am sorry.

Mr. Oakes: I am sorry if I have not answered all the points which hon. Members have raised with the rapidity which


they would expect. It is simply that I have not reached those points in my speech. I do not intend to ignore them.
I do not want to go in detail through the particular bodies nominated under the Order, but I shall mention some points that were raised during the debate. The right hon. Member for Crosby asked me why the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency appear in exempt development and also in the outstanding material interests Order. I have already answered that question. The status of an outstanding material interest excepts the SDA and WDA from the duty to acquire and the suspension of planning permission. Their inclusion in the excepted development Regulations is so that, in pursuance of their statutory duty to make the land available for development where they retain a freehold, development on that land would be excepted development. It is development that should be excepted and not necessarily the lease.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Highlands and Islands Development Board and why it is included in the outstanding material interests Order when it is clearly a statutory authority under the Act. The Board is not a statutory undertaker under the Act. It does not supply electricity or gas, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. It is a body to promote development in the Highlands and Islands. For the purposes of planning legislation it is not a statutory undertaker, but clearly it should be treated in the same way as a statutory undertaker in respect of land with which it is concerned in its operations.
I was asked about the Forestry Commission. Most of the land owned by the Forestry Commission is exempted development. This is development under forestry and agriculture powers. I need not go into the long debate that we had in Committee. Although the Forestry Commission is a statutory body, its land is not included in these Orders because it is used for the planting of trees and, therefore, is exempted development within the terms of the Act.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the question about

land that is under the Forestry Commission's management?

Mr. Oakes: Land under the management of the Forestry Commission is overwhelmingly land that is used in the course of forestry, which in itself is exempted development. It may be that the Commission owns tiny pockets of other such land, but we do not believe that it is necessary under the terms of the Order to include such minutiae of land within the terms of the Order.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is saying that minutiae are not important, but nevertheless it is important for owners of land who take part in management schemes with the Forestry Commission. Will they have to look over their shoulders at the local authorities which may have ambitions to acquire land, or if landowners enter into an arrangement with the Forestry Commission can they rest content that the contractual arrangement between themselves and the Forestry Commission will provide the same protection for owners as the operations of the Forestry Commission itself on land in its ownership? I do not think there is any great difference in equity there. I understand that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer all the detailed questions tonight, but I hope he will ensure that this matter is looked into.

Mr. Oakes: I shall certainly undertake, as I always do, to look into detailed matters. The Act is about development land, and under the terms of the Act agricultural land, forestry land and so on is specifically excepted from it. The Forestry Commission may own some parts of land which does not come within the agricultural, forestry or other exceptions. Therefore, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about that point. When I said "minutiae" I was not trying to be patronising about this matter. I am trying to emphasise that the amount of such land will be very minimal indeed.

Mr. Arthur Jones: rose——

Mr. Oakes: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to continue my speech—for the sake of the Opposition. The Opposition have tabled another Prayer, and it is now 11.5 p.m. I have give way a great deal, and there are a number of other points that I wish


to answer. I hope that it will not be considered discourteous if I do not give way again.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to transitional situations—for example, when an association has applied for registration but has not yet been registered. It is difficult to answer this point. The answer is that the only way one can determine this is as a matter of fact in each particular case. One cannot answer a semi-hypothetical question of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has raised. One must consider each one of these situations on its merits when it comes before the Secretary of State and the Department.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the output of self-build societies and so on. We shall keep a very careful eye on all aspects of schemes. However, I do not think that the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, about which he has previously asked Questions, arises in relation to this Order. I assure him that we shall keep a careful eye on each self-help scheme with regard to this matter.
I was asked about a charity's existing land holdings. A charity's existing land holding is not an outstanding material interest by virtue of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. I do not want to debate charities at length, because both Houses of Parliament have debated charities ad nauseam and have declared their views on the matter. Therefore, I do not want to debate charities by the back door, so to speak, in relation to these Orders, neither do the Government seek to do so.
I have tried to answer all the points raised as honestly and as frankly as possible. Some of the fears expressed by Opposition Members about the Act will not by any stretch of the imagination be realised. It is not the heavy-handed bureaucratic Act that some of them suggest and fear. As they consider these Orders and what I have said tonight, I think they will realise that we have a sensible and useful Act, and that my right hon. Friend will be using that Act and his powers under it in a sensible, useful way for the benefit of the community as a whole. I hope, therefore, that Opposition Members will withdraw their Prayers against the Orders, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the Minister sits down, may I remind him that he has not answered the point about the inclusion of a definition of operational land in the Order which refers to the four statutory undertakers? It comes very clearly under Section 5, which defines statutory undertakers and then goes on to define operational land. It then says in subsection (3) that if new statutory undertakers are introduced by an Order, the definition of operational land in the previous subsection does not apply and that it must have a definition in the Order itself. If one then refers to Section 18, which gives the local authority the duty to acquire land, one finds that it says that the authority does not have that duty when it is operational land of statutory undertakers. We do not know what operational land of the new statutory undertakers is. The Act definitely says that that must be explained in the Order itself.

Mr. Oakes: May I deal with this point, though I am on the edge of order in doing so? Under Section 5(3) they are not the bodies we are considering tonight, which are exempted under Section 5(1)(c). Section 5(1) includes in the definition of statutory undertakers those bodies which are specified in Section 5(1)(c). Section 5(2) defines operational land
in relation to statutory undertakers
as defined in Section 5(1) and including bodies
specified in an order
under Section 5(1)(c). Section 5(3) gives the power to define operational land where the Secretary of State thinks fit.
I hope that the House will note that Section 5(3) says only that operational land is to be defined in relation to bodies
specified in an order made under this subsection"—
that is, Section 5(3), and not the bodies we are considering tonight, which are exempted under Section 5(1)(c).

Mr. Budgen: I must ask the Minister to reply to the point I made earlier. My point was quite clear. I asked him to explain to the House how, when the British Steel Corporation has two functions—partly a monopoly one and partly a competing one—in the competing part


of its function the Corporation would be dealing on a fair and equal basis with those small independent producers of steel which still exist. The Minister did not answer my point. I rose earlier when he was speaking, and I should be grateful if he would now answer this point.

Mr. Oakes: The British Steel Corporation by Act of Parliament is akin to a statutory undertaker, and for that reason it is included in the Order along with the other statutory undertakers some of which are defined in the Act and some of which have been specified in the Order. We are talking about the duty on local authorities to acquire land. I cannot conceive of how the hon. Gentleman can argue that the private steel firms, because of this future duty on local authorities, would be severely prejudiced by the inclusion of the British Steel Corporation in the definition of statutory undertakers in the Act itself.

Mr. Graham Page: That was a brave, if rather unsuccessful, struggle by the Under-Secretary to explain the Order. However, having regard to the courtesy with which he always treats us by attempting to answer our questions and looking up points we make, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TENANCIES (NOTICES TO QUIT)

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Notices to Quit (Prescribed Information) (Protected Tenancies and Part VI Contracts) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2196), dated 18th December 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January 1976, be annulled.
I raise this topic tonight because there is a certain amount of anxiety that a matter of this kind should come before the House in this form. The Regulations require a landlord when serving a notice to quit to contain in that notice to quit certain information for the tenant, the effect of which is virtually to say to the tenant "You may ignore the notice to quit". To a limited extent that may well be the case under the existing law.
Three questions arise when one considers a measure of this kind. First of all, what is being done requires one private citizen to give legal advice to another private citizen. Second, it requires him to give incomplete legal advice. Third, it tends to worsen the present climate under which landlords are becoming less and less willing to let, thereby aggravating the existing housing shortage.
The first proposition requiring one private citizen to give legal advice to another does not need further elaboration. It is self-evident. The second proposition that that advice, when given, is incomplete requires to be dealt with in more detail.
The schedule to the Regulations contains the prescribed information which is to be given by the landlord to the tenant when serving the notice to quit. Paragraph 2 states:
If the tenancy is a protected tenancy under the Rent Acts, the court can normally give the landlord such an order only on the grounds set out in those Acts.
What is not stated is that in certain circumstances the court will be obliged to make an order. A county court judge cannot refuse in certain circumstances to grant a possession order. The absence of a paragraph to that effect will have the undesirable consequence of falsely raising a tenant's hopes.
I think one must assume that the ordinary landlord will simply get a copy of the Regulations, and copy what they say on to the notice to quit, or stationers will produce a form of notice to quit with the prescribed information upon it, because that is the legal obligation. The landlord will not consider himself under any obligation to give any further information.
The absence of further information will be misleading. If it is not pointed out to a tenant that there are circumstances in which an order will be made against him, on reading this information he will have false hopes. Moreover, the absence of words of the kind I have indicated will inevitably encourage litigation, because a tenant who reads the Regulations as they are—assuming circumstances in which the landlord may get a possession order—will be tempted to dispute an application for possession in the courts even where he has no legal ground to stand on.
It is highly undesirable for litigation to to be encouraged unnecessarily. That is axiomatic. Also, it may well lead to an unnecessary waste of public funds, because a tenant will apply to a solicitor under the legal aid scheme because he is invited to do so, only to be told that he has no case. However, the solicitor will have to be paid for that advice, whereas the matter could be made perfectly plain in these Regulations or in the prescribed information. That amounts to a serious defect.
The other incomplete legal advice which is given arises under paragraph 3, which states:
Where the tenancy is not a protected tenancy, the tenant may be able to ask the rent tribunal to postpone the date when the notice to quit runs out for up to six months as long as he does so before the notice runs out.
What that fails to do is to tell the tenant that his going to the rent tribunal for security of tenure will avail him nothing in certain circumstances. The tribunal's security is a nullity in certain circumstances because, in the circumstances laid down in the Rent Act 1974, the landlord can go straight to a county court notwithstanding any security of tenure given by a rent tribunal.
These circumstances mean that if the tenant does not continue to pay his rent or comply with the terms of his tenancy agreement, if he causes nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the house or causes damage to the property or to the landlord's furniture, going to a rent tribunal for security of tenure will avail him nothing, the six months will avail him nothing, because the landlord may go straight to a county court and apply there for his possession order.
I suggest that if one is to give legal advice to anybody, or to require someone to give legal advice to a third person, one must ensure that that advice is full and correct in all respects, so that the recipient knows precisely where he stands in law and his hopes are not raised falsely, or public money is not wasted because his hopes have been falsely raised. These Regulations fail to do that. The simple insertion of two paragraphs would meet this criticism.
I hope that in the light of this criticism the Minister will consider withdrawing the Regulations and giving thought to the

questions I have raised with him concerning this incomplete legal advice. If he does not do that, we may well find ourselves in the situation envisaged by what I said was my third objection to the Order in this form—that is, that it is making worse, and will tend to make worse, the unhappy climate that recent rent legislation has created in the relations of landlord and tenant.
No one, either inside or outside the House, needs any further conviction that recent legislation has had the effect of making landlords reluctant to rent residential property. They feel that the law is unfairly weighted against them, and the result is that fewer and fewer of them are coming forward with rented accommodation.
The people who suffer are those looking for homes who are seeking rented accommodation. The preliminary correspondence which I have had from landlords who have become aware of the Government's intention is quite unanimous and emphatic. They say "We are regarded as a race not worthy of consideration, completely beyond the pale, and therefore, as far as we are concerned, we want nothing more to do with letting our homes or parts of our homes to other people. It is finished." On the consciences of Labour Members will rest those examples of people who are denied accommodation in future because of legislation of this kind.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I assure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I shall resume my seat in about two minutes. If he accedes to the request from the Opposition Front Bench he may make Opposition Members happy, but he will make me deeply unhappy. He must weigh those alternatives one against the other.
I have been pressing for some years for Regulations with this kind of content, and I congratulate the Government on bringing them forward, although I would have wished that they had introduced them rather sooner than after the 19 months which have elapsed since the House passed the legislation under which the Regulations are made.
I wish to make only two points. This is not an unprecedented situation, as has been suggested. We already provide that


rent books have to contain certain notes. Although not all of those notes relate to legal advice, some of them do.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you indicate—I am sure it would help the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—whether, having seen the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate on these Regulations, you will exercise your discretion and adjourn this debate? Otherwise the hon. Gentleman will have to continue gabbling through his points in order to get them out in time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I can put the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. There is a good probability under Standing Orders.

Mr. Cunningham: Could you elucidate that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall be wasting a little time if I do so. I refer to Standing Order 4(2)(a) on the question of lateness of the hour.

Mr. Cunningham: That is very clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you. In that case, I shall gabble a little less.
The principal criticism that I make of the Regulations is that they prescribe the nature of the information to be contained in the notice to quit, but they do not prescribe either the language or the location of it. At present a notice to quit, simply because of its title, conveys a perfectly clear impression to the tenant that he has to quit after the notice expires. I have known of many cases in my constituency in the last few years when tenants have assumed, until they were advised to the contrary, that they had no legal right to remain there after the notice to quit had expired, and this despite the fact that most of those tenants had enjoyed a measure of security for a very long time. It is those people who do not know the law, who are frightened of even going to a solicitor or a legal advice service, whom we are trying to assist.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is right in saying that in all cases the information that will be printed on the notice to quit will be in exactly the form set out in the

schedule. If a landlord wants his notice to quit to continue to be as baffling and as frightening as it has been in the past, he will be able to ensure this even under these Regulations, because all he has to do is to put in a lot more information than the information that he is required to put in the notice to quit under the Regulations and to word the whole thing in such gobbledegook that the tenant will be even more frightened at the rather frightening words in a normal four-line notice to quit.
During the previous debate I considered what I would do if I were a bad landlord. I have come across a few, so I know their habits. I believe that it would be perfectly lawful under the Regulations——
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the business and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (Procedure).

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]

HOUSING (EX-SERVICE FAMILIES)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment a subject of great importance in my constituency which has similar application in other towns where there is a substantial population of Service families.
The Armed Forces normally offer accommodation to men and their families during their period of service. The Royal Navy provides accommodation for 3,600 families in Gosport and concentrations of Service housing elsewhere in the so-called garrison towns of Aldershot and Plymouth. Gosport stands out because of the many Service housing units compared with a total of only 26.000 homes in the whole of the borough, of which about 6,000 are council units. The points I am making are of general application


to garrison towns. If I refer particularly to Gosport, it is because of my own experience and knowledge of the area and because I am able to refer to a helpful report from the Social Services Research and Intelligence Unit produced recently by the Portsmouth Polytechnic and Hampshire Social Services Department.
Generally speaking, the housing problems of Service families start at the time they leave the Services. Many families are fortunate enough and prudent enough to buy their own houses before their date of discharge. The Royal Navy has a house-purchase scheme which allows senior men to do this. Other families are able to make savings which enable them to buy houses on leaving the Service. I would certainly urge each Service family to save and plan with a view to buying its own house at the appropriate time.
There are many families leaving the Services who are not able to buy their own homes. This is not surprising when all the factors are taken into account. The age of men joining the Royal Navy is particularly low. The Seebohm Report of 1973 quoted a survey—admittedly this was before the raising of the school leaving age—which showed that two-thirds of entrants joined the Royal Navy before the age of 17. Moreover, according to the recent social services survey in the Portsmouth and Gosport areas, almost half leave prematurely, buying themselves out of the Service, being invalided out or being given a discharge on compassionate grounds, or after fulfilling a short-service engagement such as for four years.
It is not surpising, therefore, that many ex-Service families cannot buy and are obliged to rent. This is where the trouble starts. The present Government have chosen to follow policies which have effectively driven out the private landlord, and in doing so they have driven out the private tenant. This is a reverberation of an earlier debate this evening. The result of driving out the private landlord is that it is virtually impossible to obtain a private letting in my constituency.
Even a house-owning Service family going abroad or away from the area for

a year or two is reluctant to let its house. Usually it does not do so. Such families fear that they will not be able to obtain repossession or that there will be a long delay before they can do so.
Service families nearing the end of a period of service have no real alternative to looking to the local councils to provide accommodation. Most councils face a heavy pressure of demand and have evolved their own rules for allocating housing. One rule which tends to be of general application is the residential qualification, but residence is usually defined to exclude residence in Service quarters. Therefore the Service family might be said to become stateless, as if it had been resident in no area during its period of service.
If the family reaches the end of its period of service without having managed to obtain fresh accommodation, it finds itself in unauthorised possession of Service quarters. The Ministry of Defence is exceptionally sympathetic in such cases. I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Ministry and I pay tribute to the considerable work they undertake in helping Service and ex-Service men and their families. But there must come a limit to the patience of the Ministry, because the housing will eventually be needed for other serving families.
Eviction is an important matter because it strengthens the case for a Service family to be provided with alternative accommodation. Many Service families have told me of their shame and anger at having to be evicted from their Service premises at the end of their period of service. They feel it is contrary to what they stand for and, indeed, what they have worked for during their time in the Armed Services. They feel that they are being treated in an apparently dishonourable way.
If and when a family is evicted, it becomes technically homeless. At this point the family is the responsibility of the local authority in which the homelessness occurs and it must take action to provide accommodation. This means that the so-called garrison towns, such as Gosport, have to bear the burden because these people, having become homeless, become the responsibility of the Gosport Borough Council.
The paradox is that many of the families do not want to live in Gosport. Many come from other parts of the country and would like to return there. In the circumstances I have outlined, however, the weight of responsibility is thrown not on the local authority in the area of origin of the family but only on the authority in whose area the homelessness occurs. In the case I am out-lining it is the garrison town of Gosport.
Let me give an example of the unfair operation of the present rules. Mr. John Andrews served in the Royal Navy for 11 years and his period of service ended on 1st April 1975. He, his wife and two children live in a naval house at Homer Close on the Rowner Naval Estate at Gosport, where I called to see them yesterday. Mr. Andrews comes from Lewisham, where his parents lived. His wife also comes from Lewisham, where her parents live and have always lived. Mr. Andrews is confident that he could find employment in Lewisham and, indeed, has had a firm offer of a job there. They would like to buy their own house and have some savings, but from inquiries they have made it become clear that it is not financially possible for them to buy at this time. Therefore, they have to rent.
The Andrews family has always intended to return to Lewisham. Over six years ago Mr. and Mrs. Andrews put their name on the housing waiting list at Lewisham and were told to notify Lewisham six months before they left the Service. Now, apparently, Lewisham is interpreting the rules differently and, despite persistent correspondence and despite all the facts being placed before that authority, Lewisham is not prepared to offer accommodation. Its latest letter to Mr. and Mrs. Andrews says:
If you are able to secure private accommodation (however temporary and inadequate and especially if it is in this Borough) your application can be considered in accordance with the terms of the points scheme.
But in the absence of the Andrews family physically moving to Lewisham—where, incidentally, there is no rentable property they can afford—it seems that Lewisham has turned them down. They have no hope of obtaining council accommodation in Lewisham.
The Ministry of Defence must eventually evict the family, and the Andrews family will then become homeless in Gosport. When that occurs, the family will become the responsibility of Gosport Borough Council and the Hampshire Social Services Department. Those authorities will have to find the family accommodation, perhaps by paying for a hotel room on a bed-and-breakfast basis, at a cost to the social services department of £35 a week.
The case of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and their children is not exceptional. During a 17-month survey period in the Gosport and Portsmouth area it was found that 273 families improperly held on to their Service accommodation at the end of their period of service. Of these, 173 were in Gosport. Most cases are eventually resolved, but at any one time there is an average of six ex-Service families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the Gosport and Portsmouth area.
The circumstances are particularly acute if the husband has to retire prematurely from the Services, as happens in a fair proportion of cases. Some of the most distressing situations occur when there is a break-up of the marriage, leaving the deserted wife and children in the unauthorised occupation of Service quarters. The chances are that the wife will be given accommodation which will almost certainly be many miles from her original home and many miles from her parents and her original friends.
The problems which I have outlined are, of course, known to the Department of the Environment and to the Ministry of Defence. The Department of the Environment issued a circular, No. 54/75, dealing with the housing problems of ex-Service families. It referred to the position of garrison towns but it failed to give sufficient weight to the overwhelming housing demand which arises in garrison towns simply because Service men are living there at the time of their discharge.
Gosport is "home" to the Royal Navy because of the large number of naval housing units in the borough, and we are happy that it should be that way. But garrison towns such as Gosport have a burden of housing demand thrown upon them which is simply and unequivocally


impossible to bear. It is completely unfair and unreasonable to expect Gosport to act as the provider of housing in the last resort to all Service families resident there. Circular 54/75 is completely disregarded by a large number of local authorities, and action must be taken to rectify the position.
I have taken up a fair number of cases myself, and I am not particularly proud to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I have drawn Circular 54/75 forcibly to the attention to a number of local authorities—which I have not mentioned this evening—they have quite often caved in. In one or two cases they have written back quite rapidly, particularly when I have mentioned the possibility of an Adjournment debate, and said that the housing committee has reconsidered the matter and that in the light of the circular housing can be found. But it should not be necessary for me to do the work of the Department of the Environment. The Department should emphasise the point sufficiently itself.
I suggest the following. First, every encouragement should be given to Service families at all stages in their careers to plan for their future housing needs, preferably by saving for house purchase. Second, if Service families choose to put their names on council house waiting lists they should not be debarred from priority solely by lack of a residential qualification. I recently read the robust language of Circular 24 issued in 1955, in which the then Minister in referring to housing for Servicemen, said:
That these men should be penalised in this way, solely by reason of the fact that they have been serving their country, is a most grievous injustice, which should not be allowed to continue.
The Minister was referring to the application of the residential qualification to Servicemen. I do not think there is any reason why the language of the Ministry should be less robust than it was in 1955.
My third suggestion—this is a completely new idea—is that each Service man should choose and nominate at the time of his enlistment the local authority of his origin. When he marries, his wife should also be entitled to nominate her local authority of origin. It would then be the responsibility of that nominated authority to assist in the provision of

housing accommodation at the time of the family's return to civilian life.
Should the local authority of origin not be able to provide housing, the alternative should be that any local authority in which the ex-Service man has found secure employment should accept responsibility for housing him and his family. Such a proposal, if accepted, would spread the burden of responsibility for the comparatively small number of families who are not able to make satisfactory arrangements at the end of their Service period.
My point about privately-rented accommodation is, of course, a political one, but with that exception I hope that the Minister will accept that the points I have made are completely non-partisan.
The problems I have outlined are acute and are becoming worse. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that an early strengthening or alteration of Circular 54/75 will be made in the near future, perhaps on the lines I have indicated. Pressure on Service families and other people seeking council accommodation in garrison towns is such that the situation simply cannot be left as it stands at present.

11.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for the opportunity that this debate provides of looking at the Government's policy on the housing of ex-Service families, in the light of the points he has raised in the rather special circumstances of his constituency. He has made a special case, and a very strong one, for ex-Service men and women. The difficulty is that housing authorities are faced with a number of categories who regard themselves as special cases, and they have to decide between the priorities.
Ex-Service men and ex-Service women can, and indeed do, face particular difficulties in finding accommodation for themselves and their families when their time in the Services comes to an end. They are subject to an unusually high rate of upheaval, which prevents them from putting down roots in any one place. They are, therefore, often ill-placed to fulfil residential qualifications for housing on discharge. Moreover, the place where a Service man settles on leaving the Forces is normally predetermined by the prospects for his future employment.
But the sort of difficulties that ex-Service families face are not exclusive to them. For example, there are many people and groups for whom insistence by a local authority on residential qualifications would create problems. The diminishing relevance of residential qualifications to tenancy allocation policies is a message we have been seeking to get over to local authorities in the context of our advice on homeless people, old people, single working people, one-parent families and battered wives. Our circular of guidance to local authorities last summer about the housing need of ex-Service men certainly made the point that they should not be required to satisfy residential qualifications to be accepted on housing waiting lists.
It could be argued, as some people do, that Service men have a considerable advantage over other mobile people: they are often able to make their plans for accommodation following discharge some time in advance of this, and the resettlement officers of the Ministry of Defence strongly encourage this, although the hon. Gentleman indicated that there were those buying themselves out and so on who obviously did not have this long-term advantage. The Government expect Service men to act on this advice to make early preparation and take advantage of the other help which the Ministry of Defence offers.
Some Service men will want to buy their own homes, and they can get special help with this, apart from the assistance available more generally. Officers and Service men of all three Services nearing the end of pensionable engagements are able to obtain an advance of pay to assist with buying a house. The amounts involved have recently been improved. A new scheme has been introduced to help the serving man over 50 to buy a house for his retirement. Help will also be given to those who are declared redundant as a result of the recent cut-back in defence expenditure: they will be eligible for the main Ministry of Defence assisted house purchase scheme, and, of course, the financial compensation they will receive will help some of them to enter the house purchase market.
There will, however, still be many who will have to look to the rented sector

to secure accommodation. The hon. Member implied that this would have to be public housing because of the shortage of private rented accommodation. I ought to deal with his allegation that the present Government should take the blame for this shortage, though since the House has heard the arguments on this several times before I do not intend to do so at any length.
The privately rented sector has been getting smaller since the end of the last war. The 1974 Rent Act was necessary to bring the full protection of the Rent Acts to the furnished tenant whose landlord was not resident. It has been suggested that, if the Act were repealed, numbers of furnished dwellings would rise again. I do not accept this. There is no real evidence of the withholding of property, and there is also no reason to believe that relaxation of protection would do anything but bring about a return to the situation of extortionate rent demands and arbitrary dispossession which made the 1974 Act necessary in the first place.
Our circular has accepted that, where a Service man takes his responsibilities seriously and seeks to plan ahead, local authorities ought to be prepared to accept his application for housing; and it indicates that, where he has associations with an area away from where he is stationed, the authority in question should be prepared to give particular sympathy to his application even though he has not been resident in recent times, and—just as important—should be prepared to entertain an application even though the Service man is at present adequately housed in married quarters and may not need accommodation for some time ahead.
It is important that ex-Service men and women should not be deterred from moving away from areas of military concentration because of the attitude of authorities in other parts of the country. Defence is a national task undertaken in the interests of the country as a whole, and local authorities throughout the country should therefore recognise that they have a responsibility to consider the claims of families who have contributed to their security and who seek to settle in their area.
It has happened that foresight on the part of a Service man has resulted in his name coming to the top of a housing waiting list earlier than his discharge. We would hope that authorities would not penalise him for looking ahead, by removing his name because he cannot take up the offer at that stage.
Garrison towns such as Gosport obviously are much in our minds when discussing this subject. The Government seek to recognise their difficulties—as they recognise the difficulties of authorities under other and perhaps more widespread pressures—and in its resettlement advice the Ministry of Defence emphasises the wisdom of not seeking to settle there—or anywhere else—if local authority housing is scarce. Our circular makes clear that as things are, we can hardly call on housing authorities to expand their programme especially to cater for the needs of ex-Service men. If, however, there is scope for expansion and good employment opportunities exist, there are good grounds for an authority to make the necessary provision as part of its stategy for dealing with the problems of its area.
We have heard that Gosport takes the view that it is not for it to provide accommodation for a family no member of which has roots in its area. It has a long waiting list, and I can understand its desire to give priority to its own residents. Every housing authority has heart-breaking decisions to make when there are families in desperate need of a home. A garrison town like Gosport has more than its share of allocation problems. I know Gosport has tried hard to make housing available and has dealt with cases with some sympathy. But especially where a Service man has married locally or has managed to secure a job or an offer of a job locally the local authority should give serious consideration to his claims for accommodation.
In the Government's view there is, however, no basis for saying that the housing needs of ex-Service men should predominate over the needs of other people or groups. If they are at risk of homelessness, the duty to be imposed on local authorities in this respect will apply to them as much as to others. But it is right that the special position of Service men should be borne in mind by local

authorities and that the absence of a residential qualification should not mean that the claim of a Service man is not given due consideration.
The case raised by the hon. Member, that of Mr. and Mrs Andrews, is clearly distressing. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that as a Government we should impose a duty on local authorities to rehouse ex-Service men and not all the other groups to which I have referred who are desperately in need of housing. Priorities are always difficult to establish and it is important that local authorities, which are aware of all the circumstances, should judge each case on its merits. We are concerned about all homeless people, whatever their route to homelessness, and we are proposing legislation to deal with their problems.
The housing allocation system of local authorities must be sensitive to all needs. Authorities must be left the freedom to decide which cases are most deserving of help and must be able to deal with those first. I understand that the two authorities, Gosport and Lewisham, have been in touch and I hope that as a result of the debate further consideration will be given and a suitable solution found.

Mr. Viggers: Since the Minister has asked, may I suggest that a proper course would not be for the Government to dictate to local authorities but would be for them to do what was done in 1955—namely, to ask local authorities the extent to which they are fulfilling the requirements of the circular sent to them?

Mr. Armstrong: I will bear that in mind.
I ought to say a word about procedures. Some local authorities have not been prepared to accept other evidence of impending eviction than a court order before being prepared to consider a Service man's housing needs. The close co-operation which exists between Service authorities and local authorities ought to make it unnecessary to resort to the courts—which is very distressing not only for ex-Service men but for the Service authorities. They are very reluctant to see someone who has served his country well turned out on to the streets. Indeed, Ministry of Defence practice lays down that the appropriate Defence Minister must himself approve an application to


the courts for a warrant for possession following a court order. Service married quarters are provided to combat the special stress which a Service career can put on family life, in particular separation and uncertainty. This requires that they should remain available as temporary housing.
Although, therefore, the Services treat each case of likely occupancy as sympathetically as possible, they are constrained by the need to find accommodation for currently serving Service tamilies, who must naturally take priority. We recognise that the question of procedure is difficult and I have asked my Department to review with the Ministry of Defence whether there is some other way than a court order of satisfying local authorities that a housing need exists. I recognise the measure of distress that a court order can bring to a family.
I have mentioned some of the ways in which the Ministry of Defence helps individual Service men when their discharge is in prospect. There is one other very important way in which they are constantly seeking to assist the general housing situation—by releasing houses no longer needed by them for Service

personnel. The figures for recent releases are not unimpressive.
In the period 1st April 1972 to 31st March 1975, 928 Service quarters were offered to local authorities. In the same period, 1,198 civilian quarters were offered to local authorities. In the next four years the Ministry of Defence estimates that some 3,500 quarters will become surplus to requirements and offered up. The Ministry of Defence will continue to look for opportunities for further releases
Our circular was issued only last summer and it is too early to come to a view about its general efficacy, though we shall, of course, keep it under review. Our present view would be that the circular strikes as good a balance as it is possible to strike between the particular needs of ex-Service men and housing needs generally and recognises the special difficulties in garrison towns. But I will look again at all the points the hon. Gentleman has made to see whether on any particular aspect new guidance might be helpful or should be issued.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.